Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through illness, of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon, Mr. GEORGE THOMAS, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair, as DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

UNITED DOMINIONS TRUST BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

EASTBOURNE HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Tuesday 8th April.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 8th April.

CONTINGENCIES FUND 1973–74

Ordered,
That there be laid before this House Accounts of the Contingencies Fund 1973–74, showing

(1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended 31st March 1974, and
(2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Emphysema

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she will now prescribe emphysema as a scheduled industrial disease for miners, potters and foundrymen.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): No, Sir. The available evidence does not enable me to accept that emphysema satisfies the conditions for prescription in respect of any occupational group.

Mr. Golding: Is my right hon. Friend aware that potters, foundrymen and mineworkers think that the available evidence is false and that there is a direct link between emphysema and the work they do? Will he give further consideration to this matter, as he has done to other matters to the great satisfaction of the people of North Staffordshire?

Mr. O'Malley: Coming as I do from a coalmining area, I understand the feelings of the mineworkers. However, the preferential benefits of the Industrial Injuries Scheme can be justified only if a disease or accident can be attributed to an occupation. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Pearson Royal Commission is considering all these matters. It is too soon to say when that report will be completed, but the Government are anxious—as I think my hon. Friend is anxious—that the report should be available as soon as possible so that all these matters can be considered in the light of it.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the considerable suffering from lung diseases, not only in mining, foundry working and potting, but also in the slate quarrying areas? There is considerable feeling that compensation payments should be made to sufferers in the slate quarrying areas similar to those made to workers in the coal industry who suffer lung diseases. Will the Government look into this matter in advance of the conclusions of the Pearson Commission,


which might not report for a year or 18 months?

Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the pneumoconiotic scheme in the coal industry is an industry-type scheme for which my Department has no responsibility. The Pearson Commission is considering all matters affecting industrial injuries and we await with keen interest the result of that inquiry.

Mr. Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware that from time to time over the years as progress and scientific advances have been made several loosely-termed diseases arising out of a process rather than a traumatic incident have been added to the list? Having regard to all the representations that have been made about emphysema in the categories described by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), is it not high time that it was added to the list of industrial diseases? Will the Minister try to formulate his thoughts even more strongly—I know that they are strong at present—by organising a meeting with the heads of the unions concerned so as to get their views before the Pearson Commission reports?

Mr. O'Malley: I understand and sympathise with the views expressed by my hon. Friend, who also comes from a coalmining area. The difficulty is that in the present state of medical knowledge it is not possible to distinguish clinically cases which might be due to occupation and so satisfy the requirements for prescription. The best I can say to my hon. Friend, against the background of the considerable research on the whole subject which is going on, is that the Pearson Commission is considering all these matters and it is important that we should receive its report at the earliest possible date.

Crawley Hospital

Mr. Hordern: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will now review the capacity of Crawley Hospital, in view of the expansion of the population now expected in the Horsham and Crawley region.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. David Owen): I would refer the hon. Gentleman

to my reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) on 25th February.—[Vol. 887, c. 281.]

Mr. Hordern: Does the Minister recognise that when Crawley Hospital was built it was designed to serve a population of 50,000 and that it is now having to serve a population of 130,000 in my constituency alone? Does he appreciate that the projected increase of population by 1981 will mean that the hospital will have to serve a population of 180,000? What does he propose to do about enlarging the hospital to meet these requirements?

Dr. Owen: I recognise that there is a problem because of the population that is building up. Plans for the possible provision of a district general hospital to serve this foreseen population increase are being studied as part of the overall review of health care in the area.

Birth Induction

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospital maternity units are now inducing labour in confinements as an administrative convenience; what guidance is given to mothers in regard to the effects of this procedure on themselves or on their babies; and what provision is made in such units for mothers to decline induction if there is no medical need for it.

Dr. Owen: Induced births as a percentage of all hospital deliveries in England and Wales have risen from 13·7 per cent. in 1963 to 31·5 per cent. in 1972. The reasons for this increase are being investigated. I would expect the use of this procedure to be fully discussed and agreed with the woman herself, who would have the same right to refuse induction as she has to refuse any other form of treatment offered to her.

Mrs. Butler: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he consider issuing guidelines to hospitals on the advice and help they should give to mothers who are experiencing the procedure, in view of the great disquiet which is felt among women about this whole process? Will he also consider—I understand that he has a survey in hand—advising hospitals to go slow on the special induction procedure while the survey is being undertaken and until its results are known?

Dr. Owen: We are hoping to have the initial results from the survey in the middle of the summer. When I receive those results I shall give thought to the question of issuing guidelines and taking the advice of the professional and other advisory committees that are available to us.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: As this is a widespread practice even when the condition of mother and baby does not seem to require it, should we not study the side effects even more carefully? Is it not possible that there may be some danger where the skills and facilities available are not necessarily of the very best?

Dr. Owen: The most important thing to do is to determine the facts. I share the concern of many hon. Members about a superficial trend, but there are many facts and many reasons behind this matter and we need to establish these before we make any definite policy changes.

Mrs. Knight: Does the Minister realise that many people are worried by the rise in the figures he has given us—namely, from 13 per cent. in 1963 to 31·5 per cent. now? Is it not the case that in some hospitals the figure is high as 50 per cent? Does the Minister recognise that most women believe that the delivering of babies is not a nine-till-five, Monday-to-Friday business? Does he appreciate that pregnant women are worried that their well-being and the well-being of their children is being placed second to social convenience? Are there any statistics to disprove the view that is still held by many doctors that to interfere with the natural process of childbirth can be justified only where medical reasons make induction necessary?

Dr. Owen: That only reinforces the need for the facts. Women rightly regard childbirth as a natural process. They regard it as a process not without discomfort but as essentially a normal process. Before we intervene we have to judge carefully the grounds for intervention. There is an old physician's prayer which says "From inability to leave well alone, good Lord deliver us".

Mrs. Colquhoun: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of his reply, does

my hon. Friend accept that we must have an urgent inquiry into a situation in which women are being asked to have their babies only during office hours? We do, not know what detrimental effect this will have on the women or on the babies. Does my hon. Friend appreciate that serious concern is felt by many people on this issue? Will he give an assurance that the House will have an opportunity to debate the matter?

Dr. Owen: I do not know why my hon. Friend is dissatisfied. I have told her that I share the concern that is felt. In fact, I shared that concern even before the programme which aroused a great deal of public controversy appeared on our television screens. We have instigated inquiries and surveys to establish the facts. As my hon. Friend has said, we do not fully know all the facts. We want to examine the situation so that we do not reach conclusions on unsubstantiated foundations. There is justifiable concern about the possibility of induction taking place for administrative convenience. The facts are not yet fully established and it will take time to do this. I share my hon. Friend's concern.

National Insurance Fund

Mr. Lawrence: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the present financial reserves of the National Insurance Fund.

Mr. O'Malley: The combined market value of the National Insurance Fund and the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund is about £1,500 million. From next month these funds will be merged with the Industrial Injuries Fund, which has a market value of about £300 million, to form a single National Insurance Fund.

Mr. Lawrence: Is not that a substantial sum to have in reserve? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that some of it might be put to good use by relieving some of the iniquitous surcharge levied upon the self-employed?

Mr. O'Malley: The balance is not as large as the hon. Gentleman suggests. He might have examined the situation more closely before asking his Question. It represents only about three months' expenditure within the National Insurance Fund. Therefore, it is strictly a working balance.

Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House that these are not, and cannot be in any natural sense of the term, "reserves"? They can exist only as an account on paper.

Mr. O'Malley: Of course they are an account on paper, but they are more than that in that if at any time the National Insurance Fund runs into deficit, as it did in successive years during the 1960s, the reserve can be immediately mobilised.

Mr. Ward: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the majority of employed people would greatly regret any suggestion that there should be even further subsidy to the self-employed? Is he aware that we congratulate him on the measures he has taken?

Mr. O'Malley: The House will be aware of the arrangement embodied in the Tory Social Security Act 1973 which brought in Class 4 contributions. Under that Act and now the self-employed remain in receipt of a substantial subsidy from the contributions of employers and employees. They also pay their money into the National Insurance Fund.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Does not the Minister accept that there is at present a substantial notional surplus in the fund and that the introduction of earnings-related contributions from April of this year will mean that the surplus is likely to increase in the foreseeable future given the present levels of wage inflation? In the light of that, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that at least some temporary relief for the self-employed is justified by reducing their contributions until such time as he has completed his studies on the prospect of bringing in earnings-related benefits for them? Does he realise that we would interpret his refusal to do so as merely prejudice on his part which would not be supported by any factual problems of financing the National Insurance Scheme?

Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman should not seek cheap short-term popularity with the self-employed by that kind of question. The ratio between the contributions of Class 1 and Class 2 contributors is exactly as it was set down within the Social Security Act 1973. The hon. Gentleman knows that, and he should begin to behave in a more respon-

sible manner than he has displayed so far. After all, he speaks from the Opposition Front Bench on this subject.
Before he starts talking about running down the reserves in the National Insurance Fund, the hon. Gentleman should take into account the additional calls that will arise from the transfer from the present stamp system to a fully earnings-related system of contributions. That will cost the fund on a short-term basis at least £300 million. There will be additional expenditure arising from the second uprating of retirement pensions, which the Government have said they will bring into operation later this year, and for each additional 100,000 unemployed substantial additional sums are needed. The hon. Gentleman should have considered all those matters as a Front Bench spokesman before he started making that kind of comment to me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I hope we shall have shorter questions and shorter answers, otherwise we shall not get very far.

Countesthorpe Health Centre Project

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services on what grounds she has placed the Countesthorpe health centre project fifteenth in the list of health centre priorities for the Leicester area for 1976 and beyond, after the Leicester Area Health Authority had placed the project at the top of the list and whether she will explain the criteria she uses in determining such priorities.

Dr. Owen: Countesthorpe health centre was not among the list of priority schemes put forward by Trent Regional Health Authority for consideration for inclusion in the 1975–76 programme. Selection of health centre programmes is based upon the criteria which I will, with permission, circulate in the Official Report. The regional health authority has discussed priorities beyond 1975–76 as a basis for planning but no decisions have been taken about the order of starts.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that his answer is wholly inadequate? Although I shall wait with interest to see the list of criteria when they are circulated in the Official Report, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is also aware that the Department asked the Leicester Area


Health Authority to assess priorities for Leicestershire, that it placed the Countesthorpe health centre at the top of the priority list but that this was rescinded, without any reason being given, by the Secretary of State for Social Services? Does the Minister appreciate that this will put the centre down to fifteenth place, despite the fact that the village concerned has a population of 6,000, which is rapidly increasing, and that there are a further 2,000 in the catchment area? Will he bear in mind that all these people are now being served by a surgery in a single room in the private home of the senior doctor of a panel of three? Is not this a disgraceful situation?

Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman speaks for a Government which in December 1973 cut the health service and health centre expenditure by 20 per cent. The present Government have increased expenditure, particularly on the health centre building programme. I repeat that the centre in question was not among the list of priority schemes put forward by Trent Regional Health Authority.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Janner.

Mr. Lawson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already called Mr. Janner.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State for Social Services has already assured Leicester Members of Parliament that when the priorities in the National Health Service are being considered the tremendously underprivileged position of Leicester hospitals will be taken into account? Will my hon. Friend give some assurances on health centres and domiciliary services, especially in view of the cuts made in those services by the Conservative Government?

Dr. Owen: It is part of the present Government's policy to concentrate limited resources on areas of need. In the National Health Service we are trying to define areas of health deprivation. This is one of the most important criteria used in the allocation of health centres. Inasmuch as there are in the Trent Regional Health Authority a number of areas of hospital and health deprivation, the autho-

rity can expect to see that situation reflected in allocation policies.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Is it not a fact that the Government are planning cuts in capital expenditure on hospital building between now and 1977? Does the Minister agree that public expenditure is a matter of priority and that some of us believe that the Government's priorities —the present level of food subsidies, nationalisation and municipalisation of land—do not represent the best use of available resources?

Dr. Owen: Is the hon. Gentleman challenging the priorities for health care and the building of health centres? If he is, perhaps he will give us different priorities. Will he explain how, despite the fact that we inherited considerable financial difficulties, we have still managed to lift the moratorium on the hospital building programme which otherwise would have resulted from the 20 per cent. cut and also how we have been able to restore part of the services which had been cut?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) now wish to give notice?

Mr. Lawson: Yes, I do, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do so in the customary form of words.

Mr. Lawson: I am happy to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for your courtesy. In view of the wholly unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply to my question a few moments ago I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Following is the information:
Proposals for health centre developments should be based on the following criteria:

a. Proposed centre is situated in urban zone where the organisation of primary medical care has so far made little progress.
b. General practitioners are committed to leave present premises and are dependent upon a health centre for new premises.
c. Proposed centre is part of a larger development (including hospitals university teaching units) progress on which is dependent upon the health centre proceeding.
d. Proposed centre is situated in a new town or other new community where delay


in provision would seriously hamper the development of family practitioner service.
e. General practitioners have strong desire to develop primary health care but are frustrated by lack of suitable accommodation.
f. Present general practitioner premises are well below modern standards and other means of improvement are not feasible.
g. Proposed centre is sited where there is at present inadequate accommodation for community based nursing staff or for preventive health activities.
h. The proposed location is in a "health deprived" area [a health deprived area should for the time being be interpreted as a locality in which the level of primary health care services falls well below the average obtaining in the Region].

Residential Care (Cost)

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the weekly cost of care, both running and capital, in acute hospitals, chronic hospitals, Part III accommodation, and within the person's own home, respectively.

Dr. Owen: In 1973–74 average costs per week were £110 in acute hospitals, £87 in long stay hospitals and £22 in Part III accommodation. Costs of care in the home are not available.
I will, with permission, circulate further information in the Official Report.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he take it from me that evidence exists that caring for the chronically sick at home is much cheaper and is what the patient requires? Will he immediately shift some of the scarce resources away from hospital to local authorities in joint consultation with all concerned? Will he accept that this would result in a substantial number of people who are chronically sick being able to spend the rest of their lives comfortably with their loved ones at home?

Dr. Owen: The Government's policy is to enable the elderly, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped to be cared for as far as possible in the community rather than in hospital and to improve the standard of hospital provision for those who must stay there. It is difficult to achieve this at a time of financial restraint. I agree that a great deal depends on joint planning between local authorities, particularly the social

service departments and housing departments, and area health authorities.

Mr. Boscawen: In this time of financial restraint, would it not make much more sense to put greater emphasis on some of the domiciliary care allowances such as invalid care allowance, which has recently been introduced? Should not this be spread much more widely and be made available to more people to keep them out of hospital?

Dr. Owen: I agree that it would make more sense. We shall bear in mind any positive suggestions that are made. We are constantly looking at ways of improving domiciliary services and of keeping patients in their homes. This is an important matter on which hon. Members on all sides of the House are in agreement.

Following is the information:
For acute hospitals the costs per patient week are running costs excluding capital, as the capital costs of hospitals. many of which were constructed before the start of the National Health Service, are not identifiable for costing purposes. The classification "chronic" is not used for hospitals but a figure for long-stay hospitals is provided.
In 1973–74 costs in Part III accommodation per week per resident were £19 for running expenses and £3 for servicing capital loans, before deduction of the income from charges.
Care in the community is provided mainly by the Family Practitioner Services, the Community Health Services and Personal Social Services, but the cost of these services, insofar as they are provided in the home, cannot be expressed in terms of a weekly cost.

House Repairs (Grants)

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will consider providing a house repairs grant for those people in receipt of supplementary benefit, invalidity pension or retirement pension.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alec Jones): No, Sir. Any extension of the house repairs provisions of the Housing Act 1974 would in any case be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
As my hon. Friend is aware, owner-occupiers receiving supplementary benefit have an allowance towards house repairs and insurance included in the calculation of their entitlement. If this does not meet the cost of necessary repairs, a lump sum


payment may be made. For the more expensive repairs, a maturity loan be sought from the local council and the commission would normally meet the interest charges on that.

Mr. Cryer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the assistance he has described is rarely if ever available and that many owner-occupiers, particularly those in older terraced property, find great difficulty at times when they need money to carry out essential maintenance and repairs? Will he given an assurance that he will circulate all local departmental offices with details of the grants he has outlined, with the requirement that they should be made available on a much wide basis than hitherto?

Mr. Jones: The Department has no evidence that these grants are not made available or that few people have knowledge of them, but I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Greville Janner: How many people are living on supplementary benefit and in sub-standard houses requiring urgent repair?

Mr. Jones: We have no estimate of that figure at present.

Fluoridation

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will take steps to promote the dental health of children, following the report by Professor Douglas Jackson on the results of water fluoridation in Anglesey.

Dr. Owen: This report provides further evidence of the efficacy of fluoridation of water supplies in protecting children against dental decay. I am sure that health authorities will bear it in mind when exercising their responsibility for deciding whether to introduce fluoridation in their areas.

Mr. Jessel: As the Anglesey result shows a reduction in decay of over 80 per cent. in front teeth and 40 per cent. for other teeth, will the Minister go further than to say that the result shows efficacy and add that he regards it as proved that fluoridation of about one part per million reduces dental decay dramatically? Will he draw the results to the attention of all health authorities and

ask them what action they intend to take?

Dr. Owen: I confirm that my feelings accord with those of the hon. Gentleman as to the efficacy of fluoridation. The Government have announced that they will produce later this year a consultative paper on preventive measures, including preventive dentistry. It is likely that the paper will deal with the effects of fluoridation. The information will be made available to health authorities and this House and we can then discuss the issues.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that fluoride can occur naturally in water almost to the level suggested as a health preservative measure for teeth?

Dr. Owen: That is the case. That is why research on the safety of fluoridation is probably the most extensive to have been conducted into any public health measure and why health authorities should seriously consider exercising their responsibilities in this matter.

Sir John Hall: Does the Minister agree that ingestion of fluoride for the purposes of preventing dental decay is effective only for young children up to the age of about seven years and not for adults? Is there not a less wasteful method of helping to prevent dental decay than to introduce fluoride into the public water supply which everybody has to drink whether he needs fluoride or not?

Dr. Owen: Experts in numerous countries who have been considering this matter have concentrated on the school population and the under-five population. However, the advice that one consistently gets is that the most effective way of introducing this preventive health measure is by the fluoridation of all water supplies.

Vasectomy Clinics

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she has now completed her review of how many area health authorities have established vasectomy clinics for the provision of vasectomies under the National Health Service; and how many have not.

Dr. Owen: Not yet, Sir, but a preliminary assessment indicates that 38


area health authorities have vasectomy clinics. Those without have facilities for vasectomy in general surgery and other units in hospitals.

Mr. Whitehead: Will my hon. Friend undertake that this review will be carried out as quickly as possible, because the figures he has given suggest that some area health authorities are not yet honouring either the letter or the spirit of the 1972 legislation?

Dr. Owen: I shall let my hon. Friend know as soon as I can. These figures are only provisional, being based on oral inquiries. We have still to receive many of the returns for which we asked. As soon as they are available I shall let my hon. Friend have the breakdown.

Mr. Fell: What facilities are available for advising a patient who wishes to have a vasectomy about the serious nature of the operation and the alternative to having it?

Dr. Own: Vasectomy would not be undertaken by other than a qualified medical practitioner. It would be up to him to make clear to the patient all the different factors behind making a decision.

Consultants

Mr. Bryan Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she is satisfied that each NHS region is adequately staffed by consultants in each of the specialities.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mrs. Barbara Castle): No, Sir, I am not satisfied, and this is one reason why I have proposed to the medical profession a new system of career structure supplements to replace the present system of distinction awards, so as to improve staffing ratios in some parts of the country and some specialities and to reward consultants who accept a very heavy workload and make a major contribution to the health service.

Mr. Davies: Is not this at the heart of the present dispute with the consultants? A deplorable situation has arisen in which resources for the scarce expertise of consultants are badly distributed by specialities and regions because of the extent to which consultants have exercised discretion over merit awards. Will my right

hon. Friend persist in ensuring that the community gets full value for money in this respect?

Mrs. Castle: I certainly agree that a revision of the merit award system, which at present does not have the effect of encouraging people to move into areas and specialities where they are needed, is extremely important, and I am pursuing it.

Dr. Vaughan: Does the Secretary of State realise how welcome is her belated decision to reopen consultations with the hospital consultants? Does she agree that, to regain some of the medical profession's confidence in her, it is desirable that the discussions should be wide-ranging and comprehensive and should cover all the points on which the consultants feel that they are in discord with her?

Mrs. Castle: I have made it clear all along that I am willing to resume full and detailed negotiations with the consultants as soon as their damaging sanctions are lifted. I have also made it clear that I am willing at any time for discussions to take place to clarify misunderstandings. Therefore, as soon as the BMA wrote and asked for a meeting to clarify certain interpretations of the existing contract—not a new one—I said at once that I should be happy for that meeting to take place.

Retirement Pensions

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of average industrial earnings the retirement pension for a married couple represented on 1st March 1975; and what was the comparable percentage figure on 1st March 1974.

Mr. O'Malley: I regret that information about earnings in March 1975 is not yet available. In March 1974 the figure was 29·4 per cent. of average gross earnings and 39·4 per cent. of average net earnings.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a steadily increasing gap between earnings and the pension level? Is he satisfied that the proposed increases, which come into effect in April, will go a sufficient way to restoring the ratio between the average earnings of people at work and the pensions of those who have retired?

Mr. O'Malley: My hon. Friend will recognise that between July 1974 and April 1975 this Government will have put pensions up in money terms by almost 50 per cent. That clearly represents a significant increase in the value of pensions in April this year.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the Minister of State concede that the non-availability of the March 1975 figures has enabled him to obsure the fact that the percentage asked for is probably no greater and may even be less than it was in March 1974? Does he accept that the percentage is likely to get worse because the new uprating is based on out-of-date figures up to August last year which are far below the present level of the increase in earnings? Finally, does he accept that the failure of the social contract will mean that over the coming year the real position of pensioners will deteriorate vis-à-vis the friends of the Labour Party in the big unions in heavy industry?

Mr. O'Malley: I certainly do not accept the hon. Gentleman's general proposition. For the first time in legislation, the present administration have provided that pensioners will receive increases in their pensions by the level of the movement in wages or prices, whichever is the greater. In addition, we are providing two up-ratings this year. We are doing far better than anything that was done by the previous administration. Furthermore the pension, expressed as a percentage of national average earnings, is certainly higher under this administration, comparing October 1973 with July 1974, than anything done by the previous Government.

Invalid Tricycles

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent orders she has placed for the supply of invalid tricycles, and for how many.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): The last contracts, signed in August 1974, were for a total of 1,500 vehicles and tenders for necessary further supplies are currently being scrutinised.

Mr. Hannam: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that there is growing disquiet among those concerned with

social and safety inadequacies of existing three-wheelers? Will he reassure the House that no further orders will be placed for these vehicles and that as soon as possible he will introduce four-wheeled vehicles for the disabled, thereby offering a choice of three- and four-wheeled vehicles and/or the mobility allowance?

Mr. Morris: I note the hon. Gentleman's points. The orders to which I have referred are for normal replacements and any necessary additions to the fleet. Without these orders, a large number of severely disabled people would have been immobilised. The hon. Gentleman and the House will appreciate that our decision was for cash, not vehicles. We want more freedom of choice for disabled people than they have had in the past.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Does my hon. Friend accept that instinctively many hon. Members on both sides of the House would say that they do not like the three-wheeler but that, looking at their mail, they find that a substantial number of people want to retain it? May I urge my hon. Friend to have an independently conducted survey carried out into those who want to retain the three-wheeler and those who do not, so that once and for all we may have clear guidance in this House about the views of the disabled on the three-wheeler?

Mr. Morris: There was an unofficial survey during 1974 which showed—this is the best estimate we have—that 20 per cent. of three-wheeler users would be unable in their view to manage a car. As my hon. Friend knows, I was recently in his constituency where I met a deputation of disabled drivers. I am mindful of the points they made about retaining the vehicles. There are many points of view. I am trying to put forward a policy which will give more freedom of choice to severely disabled people.

Mr. Marten: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that every order which is placed has his personal blessing?

Mr. Morris: I said that the order was principally for normal replacement. For my part, I look very carefully at these matters. The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not take the question of safety complacently. I have given a great deal of information about modifications which are being carried through. I shall certainly


do whatever I can to scrutinise closely every new order in this area.

Mr. Park: Does my hon. Friend intend to introduce legislation this year to increase the mobility allowance?

Mr. Morris: It is our firm resolve, not merely this year but during this parliamentary Session, to legislate for the new mobility allowance. That allowance will benefit both disabled drivers and non-drivers. We expect that it will bring in 100,000 additional people who at present receive no mobility help.

Supplementary Benefit (Long-term Addition)

Mrs. Wise: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what it would cost to reduce the waiting time for longterm addition to supplementary allowance from two years to one year for claimants with children.

Mr. Alec Jones: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) on 6th March—[Vol. 887, c. 503]—the estimated cost for all eligible families with children would be about £7 million.

Mrs. Wise: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that two years is a long time for a family with children to be on the poverty line in view of the requirements of children's growth and development? In view of the importance placed by his hon. Friend at an earlier stage this afternoon on the reports of commissions of inquiry into industrial diseases, may I remind my hon. Friend that the Finer Commission of Inquiry reported on this point and recommended reduction of the waiting time?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is supplying information. The question was contained in the first part of her remarks.

Mr. Jones: I assure my hon. Friend that we take very much to heart the point she makes regarding the needs of this group of people. That is why we have already said that consideration will be given to reducing the qualifying period, along with other improvements in supplementary benefits suggested in the Finer Report, as soon as resources permit.

Rents and Rates Payments

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will take steps to ensure that all long-term recipients of supplementary benefit who request that rent and rates payments be paid direct to the owners of the property should have this facility made available to them.

Mr. O'Malley: Although direct payment will now be authorised more freely, it is not practicable to provide such a service to all who request it, irrespective of difficulty in paying their rent.

Mr. Taylor: Since the Minister has obviously studied the point, can he say how many council and private tenants were evicted last year on grounds of nonpayment of rent? Is he aware of the views which have been expressed by housing departments and by social work departments that we could avoid an enormous amount of misery and distress, as well as cost to public funds, if every person on long-term supplementary benefit was given the right to have his rent paid direct if he so requested?

Mr. O'Malley: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question would be for the local authority concerned and not for me. On the second part of the question, I cannot load the staff throughout the country, or even in the hon. Gentleman's locality, by undertaking in all circumstances to pay rent direct. There has been a change in the policy on the conditions recently laid down for the payment of rent by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find this helpful. I hope he will continue to examine the matter closely to see whether these improvements bring about an amelioration of the situation which he has described.

Hypothermia

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will set up a national survey of the circumstances of the elderly whose lives are at risk from exposure to conditions of cold in their own homes.

Mr. Alec Jones: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead


(Mr. Corbett) on 13th March.—Vol. 888, c. 239]

Mr. Steel: I am at a loss to know what that reply was. Has the Under-Secretary read the excellent pamphlet issued by Help the Aged called "Death in Winter"? Is he aware of my series of Questions to the Secretary of State for the Environment, the answers to most of which amount to passing the buck to local authorities? There is a need for the Department to take the lead in this matter, to establish a national survey and to come forward with solutions which are mandatory on local authorities.

Mr. Jones: My Department and I have seen that report, which we are considering carefully. We should like to have time for its consideration before commenting on some of the facts and figures contained in it. My Department is very much aware of this problem. On 2nd December it issued a circular to all health authorities drawing their attention to the needs of these people, who may or may not be at risk.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Is not my hon. Friend aware that were he to undertake this research, which is badly needed, he would discover that the bills we pay for keeping people in hospital longer, and for taking them into hospital earlier when they become ill because their homes are inadequately heated, are enormous? There is an overwhelming case for some sort of free electricity allowance to enable this problem to be alleviated.

Mr. Jones: No one disputes the need to help these people. The suggestion regarding the survey may well not be the best way forward, since by the time the survey had been conducted and published it would be out of date and would not be of much help in identifying these people.

HOUSING (PRIME MINISTER' SPEECH)

Ql. Mr. Weetch: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech made in Islington on 8th March on housing.

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on housing made in Islington on 8th March.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): In the absence of my right hon. Friend in Belfast, I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend did so on 10th March, Sir.

Mr. Weetch: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite our inheriting a desperate housing situation, the improvement in the housing figures for the most recent quarter for the number of starts, and completions in the public and private sectors reflects a response to the constructive short-term measures which the Government have already applied? Does he further agree that the situation could be further improved if the Government rapidly implemented the section of the manifesto which advocated allowing local authorities to supply unified services for estate agency work, surveying, conveyancing and mortgages?

Mr. Short: As regards the first part of my hon. Friend's question, the Prime Minister made that point in his speech. He pointed out that when the Labour Government came to office in March the indications were that housing starts would be about 200,000 in 1974. The past three months show that they are, until now, running at a rate of 225,000 for the year. There has, therefore, been a considerable improvement.
As regards the last point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be sending a circular to local authorities tomorrow giving advice on a great many points but not, I think, on all the points included by my hon. Friend in his supplementary question.

Mr. McCrindle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to the man on an average wage a generous mortgage would be something in the region of £7,500? Assuming that to be a 90 per cent. Mortgage, would the right hon. Gentleman care to place on the official record a list of areas, especially those around London, where the average price of property to be purchased for the first time by a young married couple is £8,350?

Mr. Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is the state of affairs which we inherited when we came to


office. We made £500 million available to the building societies to keep their interest rates down, but interest rates are now generally falling.

BRUSSELS

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Brussels.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 20th March.

Mr. Pardoe: Will the Lord President ask this of his right hon. Friend, whether or not he goes to Brussels to find the answer? It would be helpful if he could refer to Brussels the speech wade during the weekend by the Secretary of State for Industry in which he told workers in the Midlands that entry into the EEC under the negotiated terms would render the Government unable to protect jobs in British industry. Does he realise that the people of this country, in making up their minds about the referendum, are seeking hard, clear facts? Will the right hon. Gentleman say, therefore, whether that is a fact and, if so, whether it is the view of the Government? They are not, of course, the same.

Mr. Short: Of course that is what the Government intend to provide—hard, clear facts. We shall do so in the White Paper on the renegotiated terms, which is a long and full document and which will be published on Thursday of this week.

Mr. Molloy: Could my right hon. Friend advise the Prime Minister that, since it is a fact that among the absurd behaviour of the Common Market administrators has been the deliberate creation of mountains of butter and beef which are then sold to places outside the Community at knock-down prices, it might be possible, for example, for a place like Lundy Island to be taken out of the Common Market? The mountains of beef and butter could be sent there, purchased by the British Government and sold at knock-down prices to the lower income groups and British old-age pensioners.

Mr. Shore: Yes, Sir, but the terms which my right hon. Friend negotiated will ensure that that does not happen in future.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a transcript of his television broadcast of 3rd March on the social contract.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 14th March.

Mr. Adley: While the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends gaze in admiration at their social contract, has any of them noticed that the nation is sliding inexorably towards bankruptcy? When will the Government learn the lesson on inflation that they seem slowly but painfully to have learned over Europe—namely, that running away from difficult decisions does not solve them and that, on inflation as on Europe, the country is waiting for the moment when the Government will give priority to the national interest over the interests of the Labour Party?

Mr. Short: In view of all that, I am sure that the hon. Member and his hon. Friends wish to help. Perhaps they will now tell us and the country what their policy is on incomes. Now that they have abolished the policy of statutory restraint and control of incomes, perhaps they will tell us what their policy is.

Mrs. Millie Miller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that part of the social contract includes a commitment to both municipalisation and improvement of housing? Is he aware that there is deep concern among Labour authorities throughout the country about the very serious cut-backs in resources being devoted to this purpose? Will he take steps to restore these cuts so that confidence in this aspect of the social contract can be maintained?

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend, who has great interest in these matters, will know that the bids by local authorities far


exceed the resources available. The Government are therefore concentrating on the worst stress areas in this part of their policy.

Mr. Dykes: Is the engineers' settlement within the social contract?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman should examine the engineers' settlement very closely—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is it?"] We do not know yet. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because there is no settlement yet; that is why. We do not know, but certainly the present indications are that it will be.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech on the social contract at Taunton on 8th March.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend did so on 10th March, Sir.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in that speech the Prime Minister singled out the railways and said that if the burden of their costs became unreasonable there would have to be a cut in services? In view of today's statement that British Rail is "bust and bankrupt" as never before, will he give the House an assurance that the Government will not bail out British Rail to satisfy the unreasonable demands of the railwaymen, even if that means a reduction in services?

Mr. Short: I answered a question on this matter, I think, the week before last. My right hon. Friend was making exactly the same point as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made in his constituency—that pressing the burden of costs beyond what the traffic could bear would inevitably lead to a cut in services.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my right hon. Friend think again about the Government's proposal of the calamitous cut in improvement grants referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller)? It is particularly in the worst areas like Islington that these cuts are being made. Is he aware, for instance, that unless this proposal is

dropped many councils will be forced to keep old houses empty because they do not have the money to repair them—including houses which they were encouraged to buy and resell—and that many thousands of tenants will be forced to remain in houses without a bath, hot water or an inside lavatory?

Mr. Short: As I was saying, government is a matter of priorities. As my hon. Friend knows, the bids put in by the local authorities far exceed the resources available for this. Therefore, it is a matter of priorities and the Government are giving priority to the very worst areas. But if my hon. Friend has any special point, I should be very glad to bring it to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is time to replace the social contract with a work contract, one that will recognise the need to increase productivity and put an end to stoppages like that of the dustcart drivers in Glasgow and the electricians at Glasgow Airport who have closed that airport for several weeks? Exactly what steps do the Government propose to take to end those disputes?

Mr. Short: We very much regret those stoppages; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement recently in the House. What we want to know, I repeat, is what is the policy of the Conservative Party—

Mr. Fletcher: You are the Government.

Mr. Short: Yes, but the Conservative Party aspires to be the Government. It has abandoned its statutory incomes policy and the country is entitled to know what its policy is.

Mr. Peyton: Would it be news to the right hon. Gentleman to hear that he is responsible now?

Mr. Short: I should have thought that our present economic situation demanded the support of all parties in this House —[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] If hon. Members opposite are saying "No", meaning that it does not demand their support, the country knows where we stand.

SOUTHEND

Mr. Spearing: asked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Southend.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so, Sir

Mr. Spearing: If the Prime Minister should go to Southend, would my right hon. Friend ask him to visit the headquarters of the VAT administration? In the conditions which Her Majesty's Government have negotiated, we are told that they will not place value added tax on essentials should we remain in the Common Market. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that five of the nine members of the EEC put VAT on food, fuel and travel? If, in the convergency of the economies, we are to avoid that, what extra and additional costs must we pay and how will my right hon. Friend guarantee that we shall not have to fall into line?

Mr. Short: May I repeat what the Prime Minister said on 18th March? He said:
The proposals now being discussed in the Community are concerned with agreeing a uniform assessment base for VAT. They provide for our system of zero rating. We will be able to resist any proposals which are unacceptable to us."—[Official Report, 18th March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 1464.]

Mr. Thorpe: Accepting the view of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that we retain our own discretion in fixing the rates of VAT which is open to all the Nine, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are delighted that there is therefore no occasion for the Prime Minister to go to Southend on this matter? Is he also aware that since the Prime Minister is a busy man and has successfully renegotiated all the matters in the manifesto—at least, that was the collective view of the Cabinet at 3.30 last Tuesday—there is no need for him to go to Brussels either, so that we applaud both those decisions? Would the right hon. Gentleman suggest that, if a visit to Southend cannot be arranged, it would be instructive to the British people if the seven defecting Cabinet Ministers went to Brussels or Southend for a television con-

frontation with those in Europe who know the facts?

Mr. Short: That is a very good idea, although I hope that they do not go by hovercraft.

Mr. Thorpe: I hope they do.

Mr. Lipton: While we all share the disappointment of the worthy citizens of Southend that the Prime Minister is not to visit them, may I ask my right hon. Friend to note that the Prime Minister is also being invited to Newcastle-under-Lyme, Glasgow, Hunterston, the Isle of Ely and St. Albans? If he visits all those places, who will look after the shop?

Mr. Short: The shop is looked after quite effectively, I can assure my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has a tremendous capacity for getting around the place, and I am sure that he will get to those places.

Mr. Channon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Prime Minister was invited to visit my constituency, may I put a supplementary question?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: One likes to be fair. I call the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Channon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he or the Prime Minister visit my constituency they will be very welcome? If, however, they are to visit the VAT offices, will the right hon. Gentleman give an absolute assurance that they will not take that opportunity to introduce multi-rate VAT, which would be extremely damaging to the shopkeepers and other business men in my constituency and elsewhere?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman knows that all we have done is to ask for study to be carried out on that.

Sir Bernard Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As it will be impossible for the Prime Minister to visit Southend without passing through South-East Essex—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We all know the delights of Southend, but there is urgent business awaiting us, and unless it is a very serious point of order—

Sir Bernard Braine: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is a point of order?

Sir Bernard Braine: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that anything touching upon South-East Essex and Southend is of the highest importance. It will be physically impossible for the Prime Minister to reach Southend unless—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. My suspicions were fully justified.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION

Mr. Secretary Foot, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Edward Short, Mr. Secretary Varley, Mrs. Secretary Castle, Mr. Secretary Benn, Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Secretary John Morris, and Mr. Albert Booth, presented a Bill to establish machinery for promoting the improvement of industrial relations; to amend the law relating to workers' rights and otherwise to amend the law relating to workers, employers, trade unions and employers' associations; to provide for the extension of the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals; to amend the law relating to unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit as respects persons affected by trade disputes; to amend the Employment Agencies Act 1973 as respects the exercise of licensing functions under that Act; to amend the Employment and Training Act 1973 as respects the status of bodies established under that Act; to amend the Health and Safety at Work &c. Act 1974 as respects the appointment of safety representatives, health and safety at work in agriculture and the disclosure of information obtained under that Act; to provide for the extension of employment legislation to certain areas outside Great Britain; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 119].

LIQUOR LICENSING

3.33 p.m.

Mr. Mike Thomas: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to liquor licensing.
I wish to draw attention to—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. Will hon. Members who wish to leave the Chamber please do so quietly?

Mr. Thomas: I wish to draw attention to what is in danger of becoming a public scandal, the plight of 27 people of some eminence who between them gave up a total of 48 months, and the civil servants who assisted them, and all the bodies and individuals that took the time and made the effort to give evidence to produce the Erroll Report on Liquor Licensing for England and Wales and the Clayson Report on Scottish Licensing Law, two eminently sensible and moderate reports. The first was presented in December 1972 and the second in August 1973. I allow my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that since then we have had two General Elections, but now is the time to implement the modest proposals in those reports to reform the liquor licensing laws.
I have not been encouraged by the almost pusillanimous and certainly inconclusive statements by Ministers on the topic since February last year. The time for implementation of the reports' recommendations is now. The object of my Bill, which has support from both sides of the House, is to give the Government an opportunity to implement the three main Erroll Committee recommendations for England and Wales.
The first recommendation concerned access to licensed premises. The Bill would not reduce the age of access or the age at which one was allowed to drink, but it would allow publicans, with the approval of the justices, to set aside rooms for the use of families, and would facilitate the continental café-pub idea which has for so long been prevented by legal technicalities from being introduced into this country.
The second of the major Erroll proposals was that the permitted hours should be from 10 a.m. to midnight. I


can find no one who can provide an ordered and sensible justification of our present licensing hours. They are antediluvian. They have no basis in social practice, economic logic or just plain common sense. It is time we did something to put them straight.
Erroll's third recommendation was that the licence for a pub should be separated from the licence for a publican. At present the two are interleaved. There is no logical reason, and it militates against the removal from the list of a publican who is not fit to be one, or the removal of a pub with inadequate facilities or hygiene.
I am introducing the Bill because my main specialist interest in the House is in consumer affairs. For too long these matters have been decided by a conspiracy between the temperance lobby, the brewers and the publicans. I am concerned with the drinkers. Our licensing hours should be designed with at least their interests in mind.
I have received many letters since I announced that I was to introduce the Bill. A large proportion of them were in favour of changing our outdated laws. Those against raised some points that I should like briefly to answer.
On access, they said that pubs were unsuitable, and that parents want to get away from their kids when they go into a pub. My Bill would put no obligation on a publican to have a family room. He would be able to apply to the justices to have one if he wanted, but there would be no obligation on the justices to allow such a room. They would have to be satisfied that the premises, both the specific room and the pub itself, were suitable.
As for parents getting away from their kids, there would be no obligation to have such a room as I have said, and I believe that if the Bill were passed children would not be allowed in the majority of rooms in almost every pub.
Two points are raised on the question of hours. One concerns disturbance to those who live near public houses. The second is the question of the problems of the publicans. The Bill would give the justices power to order a pub to close at any time up to two hours before midnight if they felt that it would cause a disturb-

ance if it were open later. Under the Bill there would be no possibility of brewers making publicans open at all the permitted hours. They would be able to open for the hours that they wished.
I am trying to get away from the idea of one law for the rich and another for the poor. At 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m. the rich can go to a night club or restaurant and have their drinks. I know of no fish and chip shop which has been licensed to serve drink after hours.
I am glad to say that I have received no objections to the proposals on licence separation. I believe that the justices and the trade would welcome this reform.
There are some who are opposed in principle to any change in the licensing laws. I believe that that is an irrational position, but there are some hon. Members who adopt it. I ask them to read the report by John Davies and Barrie Stacey for the Scottish Home and Health Department on teenagers and alcohol. They showed four simple things. First, the heavy drinkers tend to be those who are introduced to drink at a late age. Second, those with disapproving parents who give alcohol the image of forbidden fruit are likely to induce their children in practice to be heavy drinkers in later life. Third, parents who make their children think that alcohol is not only forbidden fruit but some thing associated with adulthood and "grown-upness" will tend to make their children heavy drinkers later in life. Fourth, the commonsense and real limitation on drinking heavily is simple economic restriction.
It is the amount of money one has in one's pocket which in the end determines whether one becomes a heavy drinker if one wishes to do so. It is not access or hours, which have nothing to do with the case.
I believe that the changes which would be introduced by my Bill would be beneficial and would preserve the social customs of this nation but at the same time would make modest and sensible changes which are in keeping with the times.

3.41 p.m.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I wish to oppose the motion. During the last 15 years we have witnessed a lot of permissive legislation which has not been beneficial to the public as a whole. Like my hon. Friend the Member for


Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), I am concerned about the drinkers. What I am concerned about is that if this measure is passed I can visualise that in a few years' time we shall have a greater problem on our hands in respect of alcoholics than we have today—and Heaven knows, we have a number of alcoholics today.
I believe that if the House this day allows this measure to proceed, we shall be opening the floodgates. It is not wanted in the general consensus of people to whom I have spoken, including people who drink. Like other hon. Members, I have received letters on the subject.

Question accordingly agreed to

I believe that Parliament should exerise its authority and oppose the measure because, in my humble opinion, to allow children into a pub, even though a room for them is set aside, is wrong. I would not wish to take my young granddaughter into a pub.

This is the thin end of the wedge, and we ought to oppose it.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order NO. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bill and nomination of Select Committtes at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 35.

Division No. 159.]
AYES
[3.44 p.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
George, Bruce
Oakes, Gordon


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gourlay, Harry
Ovenden, John


Ashley, Jack
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Palmer, Arthur


Ashton, Joe
Griffiths, Eldon
Park, George


Bates, Alf
Grocott, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Benyon, W.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Penhaligon, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Harper, Joseph
Phipps, Dr Colin


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hawkins, Paul
Prescott, John


Bradley, Tom
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Brotherton, Michael
Horam, John
Radice, Giles


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Huckfield, Les
Rathbone, Tim


Buchanan, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Reid, George


Budgen, Nick
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rose, Paul B.


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kaufman, Gerald
Sillars, James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Julius


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Kerr, Russell
Sims, Roger


Cohen, Stanley
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Lamborn, Harry
Snape, Peter


Conlan, Bernard
Lawrence, Ivan
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lawson, Nigel
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Corbett, Robin
Le Marchant, Spencer
Strang, Gavin


Cormack, Patrick
Lipton, Marcus
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Critchley, Julian
Loyden, Eddie
Tierney, Sydney


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Luard, Evan
Tinn, James


Dalyell, Tam
Luce, Richard
Tomlinson, John


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Townsend, Cyril D.


Dunnett, Jack
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McElhone, Frank
Ward, Michael


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Watkinson, John


Ennals, David
Marquand, David
Weetch, Ken


Fairgrieve, Russell
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Whitehead, Phillip


Faulds, Andrew
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Fell, Anthony
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Flannery, Martin
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Fookes, Miss Janet
Molloy, William
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Ford, Ben
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Forrester, John
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'wd)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Mr. Roger Stott and


Freud, Clement
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Mr. Neville Sandelson.




NOES


Beith, A. J.
Hardy, Peter
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Biffen, John
Hooley, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hooson, Emlyn
Stanley, John


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
James, David
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Cryer, Bob
Kilfedder, James
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Urwin, T. W.


Doig, Peter
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Durant, Tony
Mudd, David
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


English, Michael
Neubert, Michael
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Newens, Stanley



Eyre, Reginald
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Rt. Hon. E. Fernyhough and


Gray, Hamish
Spearing, Nigel
Mr. John Lee.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mike Thomas, Mr. Roger Stott, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Marcus Lipton, Mrs. Millie Miller, Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr. John Tomlinson. Mr. Ted Graham, Dr. J. Dickson Mabon and Mr. David Marquand.

LIQUOR LICENSING

Mr. Mike Thomas accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to liquor licensing: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11th July and to be printed [Bill 122].

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Stoddart.]

3.54 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan): It is the intention, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) to open the debate, but, if I may have the permission of the House for a moment, I should like to express the deep sense of shock and dismay which has greeted the tragic news of the assassination of His Majesty King Faisal of Saudi Arabia.
We do not yet know the full details of this crime, nor can we yet foretell its consequences, but I am sure the House will join with me in expressing our profound sorrow at the passing of a great Arab and Muslim statesman and world leader. He presided over probably the most remarkable change of fortunes that any country has seen in his lifetime. In his attitude to such problems as oil prices and their impact both on his world and on the industrialised world, and the great issues of peace and war in the Middle East, his was a voice of moderation and statesmanship.
The Arabs have lost one of their foremost sons at a time when moderate and wise counsels are badly needed. Britain has lost a good and valued friend. We extend our deepest sympathy and concern to all our Saudi Arabian friends at this time.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: I associate this side of the House wholeheartedly with the tribute which has been paid to the late King Faisal and the expression of regret at this tragic assassination. Those of us who were fortunate enough to know King Faisal knew him as a man of great dignity, integrity and total devotion to the cause of his own people and to his own religion in which he so devoutly believed. He had been carrying his country through a time of almost incredible transition with strength, calmness and moderation.
It is impossible to predict what will now happen. I think we all hope that the traditional loyalties of Saudi Arabia and respect for the revered memory of the assassinated king will help to carry that country through what is bound to be, for a short time at any rate, a difficult period. We all associate ourselves with the expression of regret at the tragedy and offer our condolences to our Saudi friends.
This would in any event have been a sombre debate without this latest occurrence, because, wherever one looks across the world, through the pages of the newspapers one sees growing difficulties and tragedies. In our own European NATO area we have seen a certain crumbling at the edges. We have seen the very disturbing events of Portugal, about which I hope the Foreign Secretary will speak later. We see the continuation of the struggle between Greece and Turkey. In the Middle East we have seen the failure of Dr. Kissinger's valiant efforts to achieve some progress, and we see in more than one country, in Kurdistan and Vietnam, long columns of refugees moving tragically forward. All across the world we see these sad events. It is hard to find any common factor in this, save perhaps that mankind, which is making so much progress in the physical sciences' seems incapable of making comparable progress in the science of government.
There is surely one common lesson to draw from this situation—that this is a world we in Britain should seek to find new friends rather than to desert old ones. I believe it adds a new dimension to the argument about our membership of the European Community. We have got to have string friends and partners of like mind and like tradition to ourselves if we are to weather the storms now facing us.
Of coarse, there will be many debates on the European Community and our membership, but it would be wrong not to debate Europe today among the many other world problems. It seems that in everything we touch on, be it the Far East or the Middle East, our relations with the Community are of fundamental importance because our ability to influence events throughout the world will be conditioned by our relationship with the Community.
Certain things must be made absolutely clear in the argument going on about the referendum. The first is that the question is not whether we go in but whether we come out. It is important that the public in making up their minds appreciate this distinction. To refuse to go into Europe might have been one thing but the consequences for Britain's standing in the world, the consequences for our future prosperity and security, will be far more grave if, having once committed ourselves as we have, we should decide to break that commitment and come out again. The issue is not "Do we go into Europe?" but "Do we come out of it?"
Second, it is important that in testing the results of the renegotiation we should recognise as a touchstone not whether those results entirely line up with the Labour Party manifesto but whether they line up with the interests of the nation. It may not mean quite the same thing in every case.
Third, it is equally clear that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, who were negotiating at all times in good faith with the other members of the Community, have throughout been recognised as being committed, subject to the success in their view of the renegotiations, to recommend wholeheartedly to Parliament and the people that we should remain within the Community.
These are the fundamental points which should be borne in mind when deciding what course should be taken. The arguments for Community membership are both economic and political. I am not convinced that the economic argument is wholly capable of conclusive proof one way or the other. I believe that the weight of the argument in favour of remaining within the Community can be demonstrated. Experience has proved the falsity of some of the old arguments such as that food prices would rise drastically once we were inside the Community. Experience over two years is not sufficient upon which to base a solid judgment. It has been a basis for some pretty un-solid argument in the past two days. The a priori argument is that it must be good to be included in such a large market and must be bad to be excluded from such a centre of economic power. The evidence of those who direct and guide the fortunes and efforts of British


industry is that they are overwhelmingly in favour of continuing our membership.
The arguments against coming out are equally strong. There is the effect on unemployment, the loss of some of our access to that market, the inevitable effect on investment in this country, already historically low, because of the lessening of funds for investment from either domestic or external sources, and the effect on sterling, because, while we must not exaggerate, it is true that sterling as an international store of value as a reserve currency which will not be so attractive if we leave the Community.
There are also the effects of world-wide competition from a single economic unit as large as the United States but with a basis of industrial costs more akin to ours. There is also the question of trading prospects in a world whose system of trade and payments and whose bilateral dealings will be increasingly dominated by the great economic groupings. To try to make our own way will be far more difficult than making our way forward as a leading member of one of the great Power groups of the world.
Today, in a foreign affairs debate, it is more the political arguments that should weigh with us. The original concept of the Treaty of Rome was very much based on the need to bring Germany back into the European community, to get away from the struggles and wars in Western Europe that had cost so much in this century. The political basis was a sound one, and it remains true today that in a dangerous world it is better to have partners than to be alone and isolated. If there are partners there are costs. There cannot be a partnership unless there is respect between partners.
Subject to that, it seems clear, and it is becoming increasingly clear as the dangers grow across the world, that our political strength and our chance of attaining our aims will be enhanced by continuing membership. What are those aims? Presumably, first of all, to maintain the security, integrity and prosperity of the United Kingdom. Second, to contribute as best we can to the maintenance of world peace, and, third, to help all those who have a claim on our sympathy and help, whether by reason of old friendship, oppression or deprivation. These,

traditionally, have been the aims of British foreign policy. But they are being pursued now in a world which is totally different from 20 or even 10 years ago.
These aims are being pursued in a world where our ability to defend ourselves alone, to contribute to world peace or to help our friends in Portugal, Vietnam or wherever is strictly limited by the facts of the modern world. We have faced the most incredible changes. We have seen this country within a generation pass from a State which governed a quarter of mankind to being a relatively small nation on an island in the North Sea. We have seen the growth of the super-Powers. We have seen the effect of modern weapons development, which has brought not a relative but an absolute change in the destructive powers of weapons so that now only great Powers armed with nuclear weapons can hope to win a war and only small Powers without nuclear weapons can dare to use force under the general umbrella of the counter-terror of the nuclear balance.
As a result of this balance of terror we are seeing progressively a transference of the aggression between nations to an aggression within nations. We must recognise clearly that the latter form of aggression can, in the long run, be as subversive to our society and country as the old-fashioned form of warfare. We have seen increasing insecurity and complexity in the world system of trade and payments, with the exposure of our currency and trading patterns to swings and tides, ebbing and flowing on a scale which 20 years ago we could not have imagined. We have seen the new growth of a consciousness of monopoly power among the producers of oil and a growing consciousness of some such power among the producers of other commodities. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be able to say something about that today because it is difficult to understand precisely where this is moving.
We have also seen a growing recognition of the need to redress the north-south balance between the industrial and the developing countries. All these profound changes seem to emphasise the need to work with partners. There was a time, perhaps in the 1950s, when we feared that joining closer with Europe would cost us our special relationship with the United States and our traditional relationship


with the Commonwealth. Neither of these fears has any foundation today.
The United States wishes profoundly to see us in Europe, continuing to add to the political and diplomatic strength of Europe. The Commonwealth leaders, I think without exception, have made it clear that they, too, want us to remain within the Community. When we look at the problems facing British diplomacy against this background, taking the European problem first, it is obvious that we have to maintain our defences, to work for détente and disarmament, and we have to be careful of the switch from external to internal aggression.
Some people might say that strengthening NATO is inconsistent with going for détente and disarmament. I do not agree. It is the sheer strength of NATO that has made it possible to advance the distance we have succeeded in advancing. In this context I am disturbed at some of the implications in the defence White Paper. It does not seem to us to be a wise time to be reducing the defensive power of NATO. It clearly has sorely troubled and worried our NATO allies. This example at this moment will neither help with European defence nor help us to maintain the best posture in which to reach long-term agreement on détente and disarmament.

Mr. Stanley Neweus: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say when he thinks has been the right time for disarmament and for cutting back on defence since the war? Has there been suet-. a time? Does he envisage that there will be such a time?

Mr. Maudling: It can be done by mutual agreement and assured performance. Those are the necessary conditions.
When it comes to working for détente, I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be kind enough to tell us more about the progress of discussions in the European Security Conference. I find it difficult to see precisely what progress is being made in this field and it would be useful if we could be told. Certainly we welcome the visit of the Prime Minister with the Foreign Secretary to Moscow, and anything that can make understanding easier and more natural between us and the Soviet Union is greatly to be welcomed.
In this context we on this side of the House regret the visit of Mr. Shelepin, which is planned for the near future. It is quite clear that there is widespread concern on both sides of the House and in the country about this visit. I hope very much that the Soviet Ambassador will be quite clear on this matter and will advise his Government that this widespread concern is not a stunt cooked up by the newspapers but demonstrates a genuine, deep feeling in this country Those of us who have these doubts do not believe that Mr. Shelepin's visit is likely to contribute to better understanding. There is a danger that it might damage the progress already made by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on their visit to Moscow. The other danger to watch is the switch from external to internal aggression.

Mr. John Tomlinson: If the right hon. Gentleman intends to pursue the question of Mr. Shelepin's visit he ought to make abundantly clear to the House exactly what he is saying. To come out with a vague statement of criticism without saying exactly what he would do, or what he thinks the Government ought to do, is doing the House less than justice.

Mr. Maudling: I thought I had made it clear that I do not think it conceivable for the Government to refuse Mr. Shelepin entry, but the Government might use their influence with the Russian authorities, and with the trade union hosts, to point out that this will not be a very good thing for Anglo-Russian relations. That would seem to be a responsible and sensible attitude for the Government to take.
I turn next in Europe to the problem of Portugal. Here again is an example of a friendly country which, after a long régime, is going through a period of dramatic and violent change and possibly of extreme reaction. It is always difficult to advocate anything that appears to be interference in the domestic affairs of a foreign country, and I know that the Foreign Secretary is aware of that. But it is, for example, asserted that very large sums of money are going from the Soviet Union to the Communist Party in Portugal. Is that so? If it is so, how can that be consistent with a general policy of détente between East and West?


We would like to know a little more about that.
Finally in Europe, we come back to the question of Cyprus, on which I hope the Foreign Secretary will give us some information. All of us have received a number of letters from wives of Cypriot citizens and British people resident there, and there can be no doubt at all that there is very great hardship indeed among Greek refugees in Cyprus. Equally, there can be no doubt about the economic situation of the island, with so much of its productive capacity concentrated in Turkish-held parts of Cyprus and severely threatened at the present time. Anything the Foreign Secretary can tell us about this, or can do to help to solve the problem of the danger and the hardship, we shall willingly and warmly support.
I want to turn to the Middle East which, even before the assassination, faced a grave and dangerous situation with the failure of the Kissinger mission. I believe that in the Middle East there is a clear need for the deployment of a European presence and influence. I do not believe that a purely local settlement between Israel and the Arab countries is likely, and the rest of the world is too deeply involved in this grave situation to ignore it.
At the same time, however, despite Dr. Kissinger's brave efforts, it is apparent that the participation of the two great Powers, Russia and the United States, has not been entirely successful. That is why I would argue that a European presence in future discussions and future negotiations could be of enormous value. We in the United Kingdom, with our traditional links with, and knowledge of, the Arab world, should be able to provide a European leadership in these matters.
I have been a good deal in the Middle East in recent years on business matters and I recognise how deep is the feeling on both sides. The difficulty in these circumstances always is that if one appears to be the friend of one side, one is assumed to be the enemy of the other. That is, in fact, absolutely untrue. The policy of the Conservative Party has not changed since Sir Alec Douglas-Home was Foreign Secretary. It is based on Resolution 242 of the United Nations,

which explicitly recognises the right of all States to live peaceably within their boundaries. We are neither pro-Israel nor pro-Arab. If anything, we are pro-British, and our sole objective is a settlement that will be both just and lasting —for if it is not just, it will not be lasting.
In this stance we mirror the stance of the Government. I do not believe that either Government or Opposition in this country have any objective in the Middle East other than that of trying to achieve a just and lasting settlement between the warring opponents. The case on either side is both simple and understandable. Israel claims the right to survive as an independent State, to live an ordered life within her own secure frontiers, to he free of terrorism and the threat of terrorism and to have freedom of trade, movement and navigation. The Israelis point with pride to what they have demonstrated of their courage, determination and sacrifice. They fear that the threats to their very existence uttered in the past may still be intended.
The Arabs, on the other hand, wish to regain lands taken from them in battle and to see the claims of the Palestinians met with justice. They believe that time is on their side. They have demonstrated the power of the oil weapon. Many of them genuinely fear that Israel, perhaps with allies, still harbours further aggressive intentions.
These are the claims and beliefs of the two sides, and we have to grapple not only with the facts and claims but also with beliefs, which in some ways are harder to deal with than facts.
I do not see how a settlement can be reached without strong international influence to assist agreement on what is fair and to guarantee security for all States within what is a fair settlement, once it is achieved. It was a tragedy that Dr. Kissinger was rebuffed. It seems that the only possible step one can now foresee is a return to Geneva. The policy of piecemeal progress, which had very much to commend it, and which we supported, seems to have run into a road block.
The danger of a meeting in Geneva is that the speed of a convoy is the speed of its slowest ship. Anyone participating in that conference might have the power of veto, and I would see difficulty arising,


for example, from the attitude adopted by the Syrians who, much as they may want to be independent of Russia, are very much dominated by the enormous amount of arms and fire power they have received from Russia. Obviously, the presence of the Palestine Liberation Organisation and Yasha Arafat will cause great problems. But we make no progress by ignoring the facts.
My noble Friend Lord Carrington was recently in the Middle East, and when Yasha Arafat asked to see him he agreed. I believe he was absolutely right, because while we all deplore acts of terrorism, we all recognise that Arafat and the PLO have been accepted by the whole of the Arab world as representing the people of Palestine. He is one of the major factors in the problem, and nothing is to be gained by ignoring that fact. No one can be sure what will come of Geneva. What is tragic is the failure to use the enormous potential in the Middle East of an alliance of Israeli knowledge and technology with Arab resources, which could produce a great leap forward in the living standards of the people in the Middle East—a leap forward to a degree that it is hard to imagine.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be kind enough to deal with the points I have raised. Of course there are many others. Perhaps he would say something about the situation in Southern Africa. Will he say a little about what is happening to the Kurds? While one welcomes a rapprochement between Iran and Iraq, which is important for Middle East development, it seems tragic that it should be taking place at the expense of so much suffering for the Kurdish people. What can the Foreign Secretary say about the situation in Vietnam and the prospects there?
I finish on the theme on which I began —that more and more we are seeing that the great nuclear Powers, Russia and America, cannot alone solve these pressing and urgent problems. There is a great need for a European presence and European influence, and this can be effective only if we are still there in our rightful place as one of the leading countries of Europe.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chipping Bar-

net (Mr. Maudling) on his first speech from the Dispatch Box in his new capacity. It was a thoughtful speech, and it was right that in his first contribution he should set out his attitude in a broad and general way to a number of the problems we have to address ourselves to.
The right hon. Gentleman's vision has never been limited to Europe. I have followed his utterances for many years—for 20 or more—and I am very glad that this afternoon he extended the discussion much wider than Europe because that was my objective in pressing, as I have been within the House and the Cabinet, for a debate. I must remind the Opposition that there is a certain dereliction of duty here on their part. They did not choose to discuss foreign affairs in the debates on the Queen's Speech, and I had literally to force myself into the debate in the middle of half a dozen domestic issues in order to get the opportunity of making a speech.
Today's debate has been arranged on the Adjournment motion, and the Opposition must realise that there are times when we must not only get away from domestic affairs but even raise our eyes beyond Europe and discuss the other issues which concern the peace of the world and in which this country has a very great influence. Therefore, although the right hon. Gentleman spent about a third of his time discussing Europe he will forgive me, I hope, if for these reasons alone I do not discuss our membership of the Community in any detail this afternoon. [Interruption.] I thought that that might arouse a certain amount of derision, but that only goes to show that hon. Members opposite are falling below the level of other world events. There are other things in the world, believe it or not, than membership of the Community. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I wish to re-emphasise that point. I have made many speeches in the past and I have no doubt that I shall make many more on the subject in the next couple of months. We shall all be preoccupied by it, so why not lift our eyes to something different this afternoon? The Government's recommendation on this matter is quite clear; namely, that Britain's best interests will be in remaining a member of the Community. This morning the Cabinet approved a very detailed White Paper setting out the issues and saying


why the Government have reached the conclusion they have. I hope that that will be published within the course of the next day or two, and, although it is not for me to anticipate the actions of the Lord President, I believe that we are likely to have a two-day debate, when, no doubt, all the guns will be fired. I therefore prefer to reserve my ammunition until then, since I have made the position quite clear.
One of the fears which was expressed continually during the course of those long debates on the EEC was that membership would cause us to turn inwards and away from our historic links with the Commonwealth, the United States and other continents. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said that it had not caused us to do so, and the purpose of the debate is to ensure that it does not, so far as possible. However, there is little doubt that when Labour came to office our relations with the United States were languishing and our relations with the Commonwealth countries certainly needed considerable nourishment. There was a single-minded tunnel vision about Europe, and it put us into a false position.
I am bound to say in fairness to the previous Conservative administration that, whether by inclination or by force of circumstance, they seemed to try to prove their European credentials, and, in addition, there were traces of a very uncooperative attitude on the part of at least one member of the Community to the United States. From the first I emphasised that Britain would not be a party to building Europe against the United States; nor should we leave that great country out of account or in the dark when members of the Community hold their continuing political and economic discussions.
There is now a general acceptance of this view in the Community, and Europe's relations with the United States have improved materially during the 12 months in which I have had the opportunity of witnessing them. This has been helped by the fact that a new group of European leaders has come to power who recognise the necessity of a close Atlantic relationship. It must be our determination in the coming years to build a healthy Atlantic partnership between a European Community and North America, and it is

on that that I take my stand in these debates.
This community of interest is based on the fact that we share a common appreciation and a common assessment of many of the world problems, such as energy resources, foodstuffs, the need to establish a better relationship between the purchasing power of the developing countries and their raw materials and commodities, and the relationship between them and the prices of the manufactured goods of industrialised countries. Europe and the United States have a joint interest in a stable world monetary and trading system. We shall not always agree on how to handle these matters—I see many points of difference—nor do we have a strict identity of interests. However, the Government's policy is that Europe must work to find the maximum area of agreement and to build on that.
If Europe and the United States disagree or decide to go their own way separately it will cause great ferment in the rest of the world and we shall do more damage to ourselves. This is bedrock policy. However, in spite of that and the emphasis I have put upon it, it is not only to the Atlantic that we should look. With increased economic and political co-operation among the States of Western Europe must go the development of co-operation between East and West in our Continent. These two things, as I think the right hon. Gentleman was saying, are not necessarily contradictory.
I have tried to follow this path, and after months of intensive preparation and consultation with the authorities of the USSR the Prime Minister and I visited Moscow in February. I think that I can claim as a result of that visit and the preparatory work that went on beforehand that our relations with the Soviet Union have a greater depth and understanding and are on an improved and more businesslike footing. In the conversations neither side tried to hide the fact that our systems are different and that our outlook on a number of problems does not coincide. The USSR recognises that we are deeply rooted in the Atlantic alliance, just as we recognise its leadership of the countries which make up the Warsaw Pact in a system which is different from our own.
My policy, as long as I have the support of the House and my party, is that


in the dangerous world in which we exist, with its built-in capacity for self-destruction, it is neither prudent nor constructive to remain at a distance from each other or in ignorance of each other's thinking. One of the main results of our visit to the USSR, therefore, is an agreement to broaden and deepen political contacts at all levels in order that we should at all times, and especially at times of tension, know as much as possible of each other's thinking.
We managed to agree on a new definition of the phrase "peaceful coexistence". It has been interpreted in one way, and a not very persuasive way as far as I was concerned, for many years. I invite hon. Members who are interested in the study and textual analysis of these documents to see what is said in the joint statement. Peaceful co-existence now has a new meaning. It is defined as meaning a mutual, beneficial co-operation between States irrespective of their political, economic and social systems, on the basis of full equality and mutual respect. That is a definition to which not even the most curmudgeonly Tory could object.
Let me say that, of course, peaceful co-existence used to mean the ideological struggle of the proletariat, by all means short of war, against hon. Members like the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill)—and that may be the underlying view; but at least in terms of long-term, fruitful, mutually beneficial cooperation between States, is it not something which we all want, whatever may be the relations between parties? If we do not, we are falling behind with the things that the world demands.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, during his visit to Moscow, he was able to discuss with the Russian leaders the position in Vietnam, which I am sure lie will agree is causing very grave concern, and whether he was able to say to the Russians that he felt it was undesirable that they should go on pouring in their large military equipment, tanks, munitions and rifles, which can only lead to even greater troubles in that part of the world?

Mr. Callaghan: We did not discuss Vietnam in detail in the USSR. There were many other matters which took up our time, and it had not then reached

the peak of crisis which it has reached at this moment. But I will perhaps say another word about Vietnam later. I hope that the hon. Member is not trying to destroy—perhaps he is—what must be in the interests of peace in the world: that is, the establishment of relations between the USSR and ourselves based on mutual respect and full understanding of each other's point of view.
I come to the question of Mr. Shelepin. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to me to be getting into a slight difficulty. When he was referring to Portugal he admitted that there was a difficulty in interfering in the domestic affairs of a foreign country. I do not know whether he extends that difficulty to the point of saying that interference would mean that we should refuse admission to any particular citizen of that country. As far as we are concerned. Mr. Shelepin is free to come here. On the basis of our relations with the USSR, his position is fully understood. I hope that he will be received with politeness wherever he goes. That is, after all, something that we should at least try to show, whatever our feelings may be and whatever representations may be made.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the difference between the Government's putting pressure on the TUC to withdraw the invitation from Mr. Shelepin and the pressure he himself, as Home Secretary, put on the MCC to withdraw the invitation to the South African cricket team in 1970?

Mr. Callaghan: That was a domestic matter in which I was putting pressure upon one of our own institutions in this country.

Mr. Brotherton: The TUC.

Mr. Callaghan: Any Government are entitled to do that if they wish, but it is certainly not my task to put pressure upon the TUC to refuse to admit people to this country.

Mr. Brotherton: Double standards.

Mr. Callaghan: I must say that at the Foreign Office it is sometimes difficult, although one argues with oneself about it. to apply a universal standard. I do not know whether all hon. Gentlemen do apply a universal standard in all their


relations, whether with Portugal, Chile, South Africa or whatever. Let us be honest: all of us at some stage in our lives seem to apply double standards. None of us should be proud of it, but let none of us be ashamed to admit it. But in the case of Mr. Shelepin—this is my own view—I do not believe that it would assist the cause of free trade unionism in the USSR to refuse to admit him.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles (Winchester) rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I will not give way on this point. It is very incidental to my speech, and I have already given way three times. I answered the question as it was put to me as honestly as I could, and I repeat that I think that Mr. Shelepin should be free to come and that our views should be made known to him. I trust that he will he received with politeness even by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles).

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles rose—

Mr. Callaghan: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows full well that if the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way he must resume his seat.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will he then please give way?

Mr. Callaghan: It gives me particular pleasure to say to a former admiral, in my capacity as a former ordinary seaman, that, as this is the first time in my life an admiral has ever said "Please" to me, I will gladly give way.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am very grateful indeed to the right hon. ordinary seaman. He is absolutely right. He and I have seen enough of it and we do not want to fight with the Russians or anyone else. We have seen it in the same regiment. But on this business of Mr. Shelepin's visit, my point is that he comes here as a guest of the TUC, but would the Foreign Secretary consider it mutually beneficial that he should receive official Government hospitality?

Mr. Callaghan: That is an issue I have not considered. It does not fall within my province and I will not attempt to answer it. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman puts his question down, I am sure that the hon. Home Secretary will give him a considered reply, but I do not know what the answer is.
I was in the middle of discussing economic relations with the USSR, and the right hon. Gentleman can see that we have had a ten-minute diversion by his back benchers on this issue. In the matter of economic co-operation, our agreement gives the opportunity to British industry to win many worthwhile orders in the Soviet market. I emphasise that the credit agreement provides a basis for increased Anglo-Soviet trade, but the initiative, the drive, the salesmanship, must come from British industry itself. I know that some hon. Members opposite have shown a marked lack of enthusiasm and portray the credit agreement as some unique British "give-away" to the Russians. Let me say that their views are not shared by those who are commonly their supporters. I refer to those British industrialists who have welcomed the opportunity which this new agreement brings.
In any case, hon. Gentlemen opposite who have criticised this agreement ought to have known, and should know now, that this new agreement is almost precisely similar to a number of agreements negotiated by other Western industrial countries. The main difference, frankly, is that countries such as France or Italy negotiated such agreements some years ago when the Conservative administration was in office. We lagged behind, and it is only now that British firms can compete in the Soviet market on equal terms with others of our Western competitors.
We have also sought with some success to improve—

Mr. Julian Amery: Mr. Julian Amery (Brighton, Pavilion) rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I have given way rather a lot over the last 10 minutes, and would rather not do so again. In any event, perhaps I could be allowed to pursue my speech for a short while after this.

Mr. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman was giving the impression that a number


of other European countries concluded agreements on rather favourable terms with the Soviet Union and was implying that the Conservative Government had not done so. We opened a line of credit for £200 million at favourable terms, although little of it was taken up. What he said was not strictly accurate.

Mr. Callaghan: I am very glad to welcome the right hon. Gentleman as an ally and if I had known that he was going to be so helpful I would have given way gladly because the criticism has been that we have given something away to the USSR which we should not have given away. If he wishes to share the guilt, I welcome it, and I hope that we shall hear no more criticism of the sort made from the benches opposite when the Prime Minister announced this agreement on the day we returned from Moscow. Perhaps it is a sign of second thoughts.
We have sought with some success to improve our bilateral relations on the same basis with other European countries. In the past 12 months there have been ministerial visits either to or from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary, in some cases with beneficial results to our trade, and I hope to follow up a number of these visits in the summer. Bilateral relations with the German Democratic Republic are developing, and it goes without saying that we have continued, and shall continue, our close relationship with Yugoslavia.
The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet asked me about the multilateral negotiations which have been going on since 1972 in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. Those negotiations have been between 32 European States plus the United States and Canada. In addition to members of both the Atlantic alliance and the Warsaw Pact, neutral countries and non-aligned countries have been taking part.
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. At times discussions seemed to be almost at a standstill, but they have been moving recently and they have now reached a relatively advanced stage. There is little doubt that the conference could be brought to a successful conclusion during the summer months. The Soviet Government are aware of the areas where movement is still required to achieve final agreement. I spent one morning during

my visit to Moscow discussing with Mr. Gromyko the issues on which there are still differences between us.
Since then, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Dublin has joined his colleagues in the European Community in expressing the hope that all participants in the conference will make the necessary efforts to obtain balanced and satisfactory results on the subjects on the agenda that remain to be completed. In that event I would expect the Heads of Governments of all the member States to meet together later this year in a conclave that will reinforce political confidence in the future development of détente between East and West. I hope that that will be generally acceptable to the House.
Another aspect of our problems to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is the question of Portugal.

Sir Anthony Royle: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves relations with Eastern Europe, will he comment on another aspect? Many of us have watched with some admiration the speed with which the Government have endeavoured to improve our relations with the Soviet Union and Eastern countries. At the same time, many of us have expressed concern that little seems to be done to ensure that we continue to have good relations with the People's Republic of China. As we have extremely good relations at present, and as our trading relations with that country are vital to us, will the Foreign Secretary say a word or two on that subject?

Mr. Callaghan: If I had been allowed to make my speech in the order I wished, I should have referred to that later, but I will take it now because I agree that we should not be exclusive in these matters. If we seek to improve our relations with the USSR and the countries of Eastern Europe on a basis that is mutually understood between each side, I see no reason why improvement of relations with the People's Republic of China should be excluded. I have on several occasions conveyed that thought to the ambassador in London when we have met to discuss these matters. The hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle) will know that we hope to welcome here Ministers from the People's Republic of China during the coming year, and I hope to visit China early


next year. The Chinese Government have said that they will welcome me there, and I shall certainly use all the opportunities I have to improve our relations with them. Perhaps I may leave the matter at that and miss out the appropriate section of my speech.

Mr. Julian Critchley: The CSCE is an extremely important conference which has hardly been aired in the House. Is the Foreign Secretary fully aware of the importance of persuading the Soviets to concede on the CBM—the advance notification of manoeuvres and military movements—without which the strategy of the West would become much more dependent upon warning?

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) is right. This is an important issue. I cannot get anyone to focus on it in the course of debate. There are three other matters which I regard as equally important but I shall not detain the House this afternoon by going into them, otherwise my speech will become too long. Some of them are of great complexity.
To those who do not follow these matters closely, CBM—confidence-building measures—relates to the exchange of information on military manoeuvres so that each side can have greater confidence in what the other side is doing. I discussed this in some detail with Mr. Gromyko, and I emphasised that whit is required is not military surveillance but a gesture of political confidence. Just before we left Moscow Pravda published an interesting report about proposed movements and manoeuvres that were about to take place in the USSR. If that type of notification can be institutionalised in the form of an agreement to exchange information within certain areas which still have to be defined it can only add to political confidence. This is not so much a military matter as a way of increasing political confidence. I will not go into the other issues—the peaceful change of frontiers, human relations and equality of principles. These matters have to be studied, and they are worthy of a day's debate in themselves.
Perhaps I may return to Portugal by way of China. I said when I went to

Lisbon recently that the events of last April had been received with particular joy in Britain, certainly by my party. We had had many connections with Dr. Soares in exile in the past, and since then the British Government and I have done all we can to provide practical help and assistance to the Portuguese, who, like any other people emerging from dictatorship, face many problems in their efforts to establish a democratic society and to control their own economic destiny. Portugal is no exception to the rule that there are adventurists who seek to exploit the situation which arises when a country is emerging from dictatorship. It appears that the abortive coup of 11th March was one such example, and violent demonstrations to intimidate recognised political parties are another.
I make clear once again our view, as I expressed it in Lisbon, that violence and other restraints on legitimate political rights have no place in a democratic society. It is important for the Portuguese people that these things should not happen, so as to avoid any risk to the unfolding of détente in the rest of Europe. Therefore, it is important that the elections which will be held on 25th April should take place in a calm atmosphere, to enable the Portuguese to express their views without fear, and to enable the leaders of the country then to take account of the views expressed by the people in forming the new Government and in framing policy. It is for the Portuguese people themselves to decide how and how far they intend to transform their society politically, economically and socially.
I recognise the commitment of many in Portugal—including the leaders of the Armed Forces Movement, who have such great responsibility and considerable power—to the achievement of this goal. I look especially to the Armed Forces movement to recognise fully that the democratic parties and their leaders should continue to play a full and active role both in formulating policy and in creating the necessary link between the Armed Forces Movement and the people they represent.
If I may return to another aspect of détente, I must underline the importance the Government attach to the achievement of progress towards détente in the military field. The Prime Minister and


Mr. Brezhnev agreed in Moscow that measures of political détente should be complemented by those of military détente. They registered the fact that the favourable changes in the international situation which have been brought about are not yet irreversible, nor do they extend to all areas of the world.
Such changes can be assisted if we make some progress in the talks now going on in Vienna to negotiate a reduction in the size of the armed forces in Europe. With our allies we are working closely to achieve an agreement which might help to bring about a more stable relationship between the NATO alliance and the Warsaw Pact countries. We seek to do so through a reduction in forces on each side which would not diminish the security of any individual country. From my experience so far progress will be very difficult but not impossible. I hope that the next few months will see some speeding up and the successful conclusion of the CSCE. In my view, that would create a climate in which some further progress could be made.
As was indicated in our Moscow joint statement, both the USSR and ourselves, together with the United States, intend to play a leading part at the forthcoming conference to review the present state of the Non-proliferation Treaty concerning the exchange of nuclear information.
I am deliberately struggling to avoid making a Cook's tour of world problems. I well remember Ernie Bevin saying that he felt he had to make such a tour. Having drowsed through many of those speeches, although they were worthy speeches, I know how hon. Members feel. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not touch upon every problem that has been raised. My right hon. Friend will seek to answer some of them. However, I must deal with one or two other issues, and particularly the Middle East.
The House will share the disappointment with which the Government heard that Dr. Kissinger had not been successful in negotiating a further partial or step-by-step agreement during the visit to the Middle East which he has just concluded. Dr. Kissinger has nothing for which to reproach himself. I discussed these issues with him both before he went to the Middle East and after his

return. I have also discussed them with other leaders in the Middle East. I wish to put on record that neither Dr. Kissinger nor anyone else could have done any more to bring the two sides together. I hope that the House will join with me in paying tribute to the immense personal effort that Dr. Kissinger has put into making the negotiations a success. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I was relieved to hear from Dr. Kissinger when we met on Sunday that his first reaction was that he and the United States Government must continue to play a most active rôle in the search for peace. The American contribution is absolutely indispensable. Doubtless there will now be a pause for reflection by the parties concerned, and by other countries, so that they can take stock of the situation at which we have now arrived. I do not think that that pause should, or need, be a long one.
The search for a lasting settlement which is fair to all concerned must be pursued with some speed. We cannot afford to let the situation freeze. There is not all that time. It may be, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, that the time will soon be ripe, if it is not ripe now, for the Geneva conference to resume its work. That would mean that for the time being the step-by-step approach had been superseded. However, I would not rule out a return to it following a return to the Geneva conference. We would have to see how the issues were displayed at such a conference.
The form of the negotiations is less important than the will to achieve a general settlement. The Government's views on the nature of the settlement remain as I stated them before and as I repeat them now. The Government believe that Israel must be given satisfaction as regards her legitimate demands for peace, security and recognition. We believe that the Arab States must equally be given satisfaction as regards their demands for the withdrawal of Israeli occupying forces. Due recognition must also be given to the rights, both human and political, of the Palestinian people. The nature of the representation of those people will undoubtedly be a thorny problem before a return to Geneva is satisfactorily agreed, if, indeed, that turns out to be the general desire of all the participants.
There is nothing in the situation itself, apart from the attitude with which people approach it, which need make a settlement impossible to achieve, and perhaps a settlement going even further than that which some of us had in mind on the basis of the step-by-step approach. There are great issues at stake and there is a great deal at stake. Therefore, I think it may be necessary to make a bold leap forward. We shall see whether or not that is necessary. We must call upon all the parties to the dispute—I believe the whole House would do so—to persevere in the search for peace and to reject all ideas of a recourse to violence, because in the long run that will not advance the interests of any one of them.
The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet suggested that the United Kingdom and Europe should play a greater part in these matters. The Euro-Arab dialogue was intended as a means of establishing closer relations, but not on the political plane. We did not wish to cut across Dr. Kissinger's own work. The dialogue was intended to be more on an economic plane. I speak for the United Kingdom when I say that we are ready with other countries to consider any proposals that might be made by which we could assist in the search. However, we must be careful before we thrust ourselves forward. The rôle of a mediator—and I have had some experience of it—is not always a happy one. I know how Dr. Kissinger is feeling today.
The British interest lies in a general settlement. We believe that such a settlement can best be achieved by the parties in the framework of the Geneva conference and with the continued good offices of the United States.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to comment on the position in Cyprus—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, would not he agree that both in the context of the Euro-Arab dialogue and in the now inevitable and, in my view, long-overdue move to Geneva it really is time that Her Majesty's Government decided that it is only the PLO that can represent the interests of the Palestinian people? Does he agree that any nonsense about Jordan or Jordanian delegates representing the PLO, and pre-

tending that it does not exist in the Euro-Arab dialogue, is not really the way in which we shall move towards a satisfactory conclusion in these matters?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that I am called upon to express a view upon who should recognise the Palestinian people. I have said what I think their interests demand. The subject of who should represent them seems to be basically a question for those who attended the Rabat conference to settle for themselves.

Mr. Faulds: They have settled it.

Mr. Callaghan: I say that it is for them to settle it.

Mr. Faulds: They have accepted the PLO.

Mr. Callaghan: As I say, it is for them to settle it. I do not see that it is a matter which the United Kingdom Government should pronounce upon in a very delicate situation. I do not know whether there is universal agreement amongst the countries which attended the Rabat conference. We shall see whether that is the position. I believe that it is unnecessary for the British Government to get embroiled in that dispute, especially if we are to be asked to take a greater part in settling the substantive issue of the conference. I do not know whether that will be so but we should not begin by taking sides on a matter of representation which is not our direct concern.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the first essential in the Arab-Israel situation is an extension of the United Nations mandate? I believe that the first mandate expires on 24th April.

Mr. Callaghan: I promised the House, although I am being very long, that this was to be a short speech. It was for that reason that I said in implied terms that we did not have too much time. I could go on to spell out the interruption of the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts). I assumed that the House was aware of the position. I can promise the hon. Gentleman that I was aware of it. Please let me finish.
The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet asked about Cyprus. On 12th


March the United Nations Security Council adopted the resolution of which I am sure the House is aware. That resolution followed three weeks' sustained effort in which our ambassador, Mr. Ivor Richard, who is known to hon. Members on both sides of the House, played a leading part. It was a sustained effort to find a way acceptable to both sides that would lead to meaningful negotiations between the communities. Neither the Greek Cypriots nor the Turkish Cypriots were completely satisfied with the outcome of the United Nations debate, but the resolution eventually adopted has created a new framework for talks, if the parties will take avantage of it.
The situation gave the United Nations Secretary-General a chance to undertake a mission of good offices. The House will join me in wishing Dr. Waldheim success in his task. He has the full support of Her Majesty's Government in any effort which we can make on his behalf.
While talks to settle the island's future hang fire, the position of the people on the island does not improve. The leaders of both communities now have a fresh background against which to negotiate. I had an opportunity of discussing these matters over the weekend with Mr. Ecevit. I trust that we helped to forward the situation a little. We stand ready to help.
I now pass to Rhodesia. My visit to Africa at the beginning of the year enabled me to explain our standpoint to a number of countries. I believe that our point of view is better understood in Africa now than at any time previously. I admire and support the statesmanship of the African countries in using the opportunities they have, in the changed circumstances of today, to encourage the Rhodesians themselves—white and black —to come together to find just and peaceful settlement of their differences.
Since I returned from Africa I have kept in close touch with the Governments of Zambia, Tanzania, Botswana and also South Africa. Events this month, especially the detention of the Rev. Sithole and the death of Mr. Chitepo, show how easily progress can be set back. I cannot claim that there has been much forward movement since I was there in January. But there is little doubt that all the Governments in Southern Africa are impatient for a negotiated solution in Rhodesia.

While I do not wish to go into details today, I wish to emphasise that it is those who hold the power in their hands who can make the first and greatest contribution to an agreed and acceptable settlement —because it is those who live in Southern Africa whose interests are vitally affected by what happens there.
I wish to finish by mentioning one other matter to which the right hon. Gentleman referred; namely, the economic problems of part of the world, if not the whole world.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West) rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I should be grateful if I could be allowed to complete my remarks. I am cutting into the time of other hon. Members.
The world is facing an important challenge from the developing countries about what they believe to be a fundamental inequity of an international economic system regulated, as they say, by a small group of rich countries led by the United States. This feeling of dissatisfaction, which expressed itself very strongly at the special United Nations Assembly last spring and again at the United Nations in the autumn, is creating political tensions as well as economic divisions. It therefore falls to be discussed in a foreign affairs debate.
These nations are increasingly conscious that the gap between them and the richer countries has been widening, not narrowing, and that the real political influence in major international decisions eludes them. This feeling, coupled with the power demonstrated by the oil producers, has encouraged the developing countries in their campaign for what they call a new international economic order. So far only the oil producers have been able to translate this potential power into economic reality. And what effects it has had! But there are special factors which are unique in terms of the trade in oil. Looking ahead, it will be foolish for us to sit back defensively in the face of this situation. The developing countries, which depend on their raw materials and commodities for their earnings, should receive an assurance from the industrialised nations—indeed, I now give that assurance on behalf of Her Majesty's Government —that we recognise that we cannot continue to be rich while keeping them poor


and that we will seek with them ways and means of ending this situation.
We shall need better machinery than now exists. Both developed and developing countries have an equal interest in success. We, the developed countries, need security; the industrialised countries such as ourselves need security of supplies at reasonable prices. The developing countries need security of earnings so that they are not at the mercy of the market. So far I do not think that the general polemical exchanges in the United Nations have carried us very much further. There seems to be a conflict mentality building up between developed and developing countries, and Britain will work to replace it by a policy of co-operation.
The world is not neatly divided into industrialised consumers inhabiting the northern hemisphere and developing producers inhabiting the southern. Industrialised countries are among the main producers of raw materials, and we are all consumers. The reality of today is the interdependence of the international community. That is the lesson we need to emphasise time and again.
It is against that background that we had discussions with Prime Minister Trudeau in Ottawa and with President Ford in Washington. We raised discussions on this matter and received encouragement to go ahead with our studies. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hopes to initiate at the forthcoming Prime Ministers' conference at Kingston at the end of the month a discussion of these problems from the standpoint which I have briefly outlined this afternoon. At Kingston will be representatives of many of the primary producing countries hardest hit by recent world developments. There will be major developed primary producers present, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Britain will be there both in its capacity as a major importer of primary products and as a member of the world's largest consumer of primary products—namely, the EEC. A member of OPEC will be there in the person of General Gowon, of Nigeria. If we in the Commonwealth, having discussed these matters, could achieve a broad measure of agreement on the way to

handle these matters it would have an influence on the policies of the EEC, OPEC and the Group of 77 and the general attitude in the United Nations. This is an important way in which the Commonwealth is of value, and it is a way in which we can act as a beneficient instrument in world policy.
Our close working relationship with the United States will mean that we shall he able to influence its thinking, too. The United States has already taken a lead both in establishing the International Energy Agency and in putting forward initiatives at the World Food Conference in Rome. We have machinery, which may or may not be adequate, to deal with energy policy and world foodstuffs.
Let me turn to the problem of raw materials, to the third leg of the Prime Ministers' conference in Jamaica. We hope that we shall make substantial progress in a number of fields. It is necessary and right that consumers should consult and develop their policies in cooperation. But it is also necessary—and it has been my consistent aim—to promote a constructive discussion between consumers and producers of oil whose common interests are so much greater than the preoccupations which divide them.
What will be valuable at Kingston—the House will see how many "pearls" it has missed—will be to have frank exchanges of view about each other's problems. We should look, for example, at the problems and advantages of price stabilisation schemes and at the relative benefits of earnings stabilisation and price stabilisation from the point of view both of direction of benefit and of overall cost and burden sharing.
These proposals are not mutually exclusive, and we may end up by picking the best elements from several alternatives. I expect that at Kingston we shall get no further than to be in a position to discuss broad objectives and perhaps agree on some suitable procedural machinery. But this in itself will be a major step towards practical solutions to these problems and a step away from sterile confrontation. This is our aim and our hope in the important discussions at Kingston. The Commonwealth can demonstrate once again its value and vitality and can give a lead to the world.
I apologise for taking so long, but the interruptions have made my task even longer than it would have been.
The House will agree that the Government are pursuing an active foreign policy. We shall continue to do so both in Europe and outside it in co-operation with our friends and allies. We shall continue in our determination to reinforce peace and to secure measures of disarmanent, to strengthen the domestic economy, to redress grievances of the poorer developing nations, to remove the causes of injustice wherever they occur, to improve relations with all countries, and to strengthen the effectiveness of the United Nations.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Walters: The debate today is not primarily on Europe. Yet, it is hardly possible not to touch on Europe in any discussion on foreign affairs because practically every aspect of British foreign policy is related to our position as a member of the European Community. Regrettably, over the past year our rôle as a positive initiator of European foreign policy initiatives has ceased and we have inevitably become a passenger. I hope this will change after June.
Meanwhile, British foreign policy has suffered as has European policy, and perhaps nowhere is this so apparent as in European relations with the Middle East. As Dr. Kissinger's latest endeavour sadly collapses, the absence of Europe's influence is glaringly apparent and the need for a relevant European initiative is more obvious than usual, though some of us have been urging such action for a very long time. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) referred to this in his speech.
Also like him and other hon. Members, I have had the privilege of meeting King Faisal. I should like to associate myself with the tribute paid by the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend. The assassination of King Faisal, one of the most distinguished and influential of Arab leaders, casts even more gloom on a sombre scene. The consequences, although as yet impossible to assess, are incalculable. A feeling of apprehension will run through the whole of the area, particularly down the Gulf.
As it is, the Middle East could be close to war once again. If it comes, it will probably be more severe than any of the previous Arab-Israeli wars. It could well embroil the super-Powers and Europe. At the very least, it will mean the imposition of restrictions and perhaps a total embargo on oil supplies from the Middle East.
The latest Kissinger initiative has collapsed because of the impossibility of finding a satisfactory formula which would enable the Israelis to make a further withdrawal in Sinai.
There is, of course, an inherent absurdity in the pretence that a withdrawal to the Mitla Pass line involved some fantastic concession by Israel unless she received in exchange a pledge of non-belligerency by Egypt. Naturally, Israel is entitled to such a pledge and more besides—a peace settlement and massive guarantees which will satisfy any Israeli Government genuinely seeking an acceptable settlement, and the Arab Governments as well, but only when she has declared her intention of withdrawing from the Arab territories occupied in the 1967 war and a timetable has been agreed for the withdrawal.
In fact, as reported in the Daily Telegraph on Friday, and as confirmed by Dr. Kissinger's statements after the breakdown, President Sadat went very far to prevent a breakdown of the negotiations. The one thing that he could not give was a written end to the state of war with Israel, for, as he has often said, such a pact would have to wait for the end of the full-scale Geneva peace conference.
The method of negotiation adopted by Dr. Kissinger succeeded in the immediate aim of securing a disengagement of forces after October. That should have set the stage for a general peace conference at which a comprehensive settlement could be worked out and put to both sides.
Instead, Dr. Kissinger decided to conduct his step-by-step diplomacy. Of course, he pursued it in the best of faith and, as the Foreign Secretary said, with both skill and determination. But the effect has been to give Israel time to forget the lessons of the October war and to tighten still further her grip on Arab lands occupied in 1967.
Among the Arabs, these wasted months of private and partial bargaining have heightened suspicions of Israeli and, indeed, American intentions. Inevitably, they have strengthened the conviction that another war will be needed to convince Israel that she must give back the occupied territories and redress the wrong inflicted on the Palestinians.
A negotiated peace settlement is still possible, and without doubt the speediest and most effective way of reaching it would be by really blunt and serious American pressure on Israel, since only the United States can extract from Israel the necessary concessions. This, incidentally, would be in the best interests of all, including Israel.

Mr. Greville Janner: Rubbish!

Mr. Walters: It is unlikely to happen, although some American political leaders are beginning to give public expression of resentment at Israel's intransigence—expressions which previously, with the notable exception of Senator Fulbright, had been voiced only in private by exasperated State Department officials. Such a sensible development of American policy, although not impossible, is unlikely.
In the circumstances, is there now scope for a useful European initiative? Without expecting miraculous results, I believe there is. Indeed, some of the suggestions to which I shall now refer have been submitted by myself and some of my hon. Friends to the Foreign Secretary for his consideration.
The Governments of the Nine should concentrate on bringing the search for peace back to the kind of negotiations for a comprehensive settlement envisaged in the United Nations cease-fire resolutions immediately after the October war. At that time the impact of war and the terrible dangers involved seemed at last to have opened the eyes of all concerned to the urgent need for a combined effort to settle once and for all. That mood of realism and urgency needs to be revived.
Such a concerted European initiative should be based on Resolution 242 and the declaration of the Nine Governments in November 1973. But it must also take

account of the recognition, now nearly unanimous, among the international community that there can be no lasting peace in the Middle East without satisfaction of the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people. This was the phrase used by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons on 30th October, and among those who have expressed a similar view is the Chairman of the World Jewish Congress, Mr. Nahum Goldmann.
In a recent very significant interview in De Monde, Mr. Goldmann stated that negotiations between Israel and the PLO are possible. In the same interview, he said that it was obvious that there could be no durable peace in the area without an agreement between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.
Recognition of Palestinian political rights, however is meaningless if it does not extend in practice to recognising the Palestinians' right to participate in negotiations for a settlement. Indeed, if there is ever to be a lasting peace, sooner or later Israelis and Palestinians must meet and negotiate the terms of their future co-existence.

Mr. Greville Janner: In the view of the hon. Gentleman, do the same considerations apply to the Egyptians and the Syrians, so that they should now meet with the Israelis to try to work out a solution?

Mr. Walters: If there were a meeting in Geneva to discuss an overall peace settlement, the Syrians and Egyptians would meet the Israelis. Whom else would they meet?
So far Israel has objected both to Palestinian participation in general and to PLO participation in particular. I do not think that the objections stand up to scrutiny.
The argument that the PLO has no authority to represent the Palestinians is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, unrealistic. The whole Arab world has now agreed that the PLO should speak for the Palestinians, and this decision has been endorsed by an overwhelming majority of the international community.
The objection that the PLO is disqualified as a negotiator because it is a terrorist organisation does not come well from the Israelis in view of the past


history of Zionist terrorism in Palestine. In any case, there are plenty of Governments in the world today who grew out of what their enemies called at the time terrorist organisations while they called themselves resistance movements. In any event, they have gradually achieved international recognition.

Mr. John Lee: The hon. Gentleman has reiterated the point that nearly all emergent nations have resorted to terrorist tactics. Would he agree that an ironical exception to that rule is that of the Kurds, who have scrupulously refrained from international terrorism but for whom no one gives a damn?

Mr. Walters: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the problems faced by the Kurds, and, indeed, the appalling problems faced by other refugees. However, that is beside the argument I was trying to develop.
There remains another argument, that it is unreasonable to expect Israel to negotiate with the PLO because its declared aim, which is the establishment of a democratic secular State both for Arabs and Jews in Palestine, would necessarily involve the destruction of the Zionist State. It is not unheard of for adversaries whose ultimate ideological aims are in conflict to sit down and negotiate a modus vivendi. If this were not so we would never speak to the Communist Powers.
The argument depends on the presumption that the PLO is irrevocably committed to the destruction of Israel by force. There is in fact a growing body of opinion among the PLO which advocates acceptance of a Palestinian State established on the West Bank and Gaza and the adoption of a waiting policy in the belief that as time passes pressures will build up within Israel in favour of some accommodation with the Palestinians, not unlike the "State in partnership" vision.
A primary aim of any European initiative should be to try to bring Israelis and Palestinians together at the conference table. To that end the European Governments should concentrate their efforts on certain essential points. They should make it clear to Israel that if ever there is to be peace in the Middle East

Israeli and Palestinian representatives must meet to try to agree on the form of their coexistence. Israel might remember that the United Nations partition resolution of 1947, on which Israel based the legitimacy of its own State, also envisaged the establishment of an Arab State within the area of Palestine.
The European Governments should further urge the PLO leadership to restate its ideas about the future coexistence of Israelis and Palestinians in terms which will take into account the overwhelming desire of the great majority of Israelis to preserve their own national identity and sovereignty, and which will recognise that the coalescence of the two peoples in a reunified Israel-Palestine can only come about gradually over a long period and by a voluntary and evolutionary process.
However, the European Governments cannot expect to put this advice effectively to the PLO unless they are prepared to establish a positive working relationship with the PLO leaders involving some degree of formal recognition. This is a necessary first step if Europe is to exercise any influence at all on the Palestinian leadership.
I suggest that it is desirable that Europe should exercise that influence, and should urge upon both the Israelis and the PLO that in any forthcoming peace negotiations they should agree to leave in abeyance discussions of ideological aims and ultimate solutions, and should concentrate on the immediate and practical step of trying to find a modus vivendi.
Last, the European Governments should urge on all concerned, and especially on the Israelis and Palestinians, the vital importance of effective peacekeeping arrangements in any settlement. Machinery for this purpose would have to be set up on a long-term basis. Effective peacekeeping arrangements are a far more positive safeguard against future aggression by either side than any formal exchange of assurances.
No peacekeeping machinery will ever be totally effective in preventing border conflict. However, the United Nations force stationed in Gaza and Sinai between 1957 and 1967 was on the whole remarkably successful. It would have been still more effective if Israel had not always


refused to allow United Nations forces to operate on the Israeli side of the border. The setting up of effective peacekeeping machinery would be a significant test of sincerity on both sides.
I believe that a European initiative putting forward proposals on those lines would be constructive and would go to the root of the Middle East problem. It would bring Europe back in a major political r ôle. Except for the parties directly concerned, Europe has most to lose by the renewal of further fighting or the outbreak of war in the Middle East.
I believe that the best hope for achieving peace still lies in determined United States pressure on Israel. But if that does not materialise Europe should be ready to step in and, together with France, Britain should take the lead in formulating such a policy and in calling for action.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Without criticising the length of the speech of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters), I remind the House that 24 hon. Members are anxious to take part in the debate. At the present rate, there will be three speakers an hour, but at that rate we shall need eight hours to accommodate those wishing to speak. I hope that hon. Members will be generous to each other.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I will do my best, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to obey your ruling—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot rule on this matter. Sometimes I wish that I had the power to do so, but I do not.

Mr. Stewart: I accept that correction, Sir. I will do my best to follow your advice. I am sure that it will justify me in regretfully declining to give way to anyone during my speech.
I welcome what the Foreign Secretary told us about the progress towards better understanding with the Soviet Union. I think he will agree that progress in that field irretrievably, inescapably, is bound up with the maintenance of the defence and cohesion of the Western alliance. I want to devote my short speech to the rather gloomy subject of some of the facts in the world which cause us to be some-

what anxious about the strength and cohesion of the alliance.
I start with an area which seems some distance from the West but is very much in point, and with which my right hon. Friend was not able to deal—the events in South-East Asia. We must all view them with concern and with sympathy for the unhappy people of those nations. I mean particularly the people of Cambodia, who cannot be accused of having brought these troubles on themselves. The presence of North Vietnamese troops in Cambodia is due to one reason only—that Cambodia is where it is on the map and can be used as a road into South Vietnam. That is the unhappy position of those people. More than that, what is happening there is bound to cause great anxiety to the peoples of Thailand, Malaysia and, which will be of particular concern to my hon. Friends, to the Prime Minister of Singapore, who is well known and respected by many of us.
Moreover, these events are bound to be read in many quarters as a setback for the influence of the United States in the world. One must add to that the disarray in which, unhappily, the Government of the United States is at present, for internal reasons. This is something which every friend of human freedom must profoundly regret. It is also a source of danger in the world. I am sure that some will say that in the last resort a country in South-East Asia which had been led to regard the United States as an ally has been abandoned. What has happened in the Far East could happen in the Middle East.
This is likely to encourage those whose real object in Middle Eastern policy is the destruction of the State of Israel. It is not likely to make Israel herself more forthcoming. I think that we were all interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters). There was some force in his arguments, but I think he will agree that it would require a great deal of faith and trust on the part of Israel for them to be accepted.
Israel could take a view anything like that which the hon. Gentleman was putting forward only if she could feel that there was a sure and certain guarantee of her continued existence. In a world in which we have seen the events in South-East Asia, in which the influence of the United States Government has weakened,


it is not easy for Israel to feel that confidence. Therefore, anyone who expresses and pleasure at the recent turn of events in South-East Asia or about the embarrassments of the United States Government cannot consistently express any regret if Israel later finds herself in mortal peril. If Israel finds herself abandoned, the nations of the West may come to regret that as bitterly as they had cause to regret the abandonment of Czechoslovakia in 1938.
In handling these matters, as the Foreign Secretary said, Britain's own influence is limited, so we must act together with like-minded nations. I will try to give some precision to that remark. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said that Britain's foreign policy should be concerned with direct United Kingdom interests, and with those who had a claim on us by virtue of old friendship or by virtue of being deprived or oppressed. If anything justifies the North Atlantic alliance, it is that, generally, when one has admitted certain criticisms of some of its members, it is a group of nations which believe in the maintenance of the right of the ordinary citizen to choose to criticise, and, if he wishes, to change, his Government.
We on this side go further and say that those democratic rights should be actively used to promote equality and social justice. That is a matter on which one can disagree, but what the alliance should be agreed on is the maintenance of human freedom. It is in that sense that I speak of "like-minded nations".
Unhappily, at the moment the alliance suffers from several embarrassments. The situation in Cyprus renders the adhesion of both Turkey and Greece to the alliance less than wholehearted. In this respect we can only hope—we cannot ask a British Government to solve all the world's problems—but I would judge from the way that my right hon. Friend has approached this matter that if he will keep on there is a chance that he may get both these nations to see where their own interests and those of Cyprus lie. A particular victory by one of them at the expense of the other, if it endangered the whole alliance, would be a victory not worth having.
Turning to the situation in Portugal, many of us who value the Western alliance for its contribution to human free-

dom have long regretted that two of its members, Greece and Portugal, were tyrannies. I was never in favour, however, of trying to get them out of the alliance, because I believed that in the end liberty would return to those countries. I think that we are all glad that liberty is returning to Greece and hope that the same will be true of Portugal.
Here again, a British Government cannot tell the Portuguese people what to do, but even a country of limited power loses nothing by making clear to the rest of the world what sort of things it believes in. I always took the view that, although it was right in a dangerous world to have one's relations as correct as one could with every country, there was bound, and ought, to be a special degree of warmth in one's relations with those countries which, like this country, believed in democracy and human freedom. I hope that we shall always in our foreign relations make that clear; I do not think that it is entirely without influence. It is surely desperately important that the unfortunate people of Portugal, for too long deprived of their liberty, should at last have a genuine opportunity to make a free choice.
There is a bitter satire by Robert Louis Stevenson of a land in which, because of a cruel enchantment, all the inhabitants have to go around with a heavy iron shackle around the right leg. In that country there arose a hero who travelled far and killed the enchanter and broke the spell. When he returned to his own country, the first person he met among his fellow countrymen was someone wearing a heavy iron shackle around the left leg. "Why is this?" said the hero. "Don't you know?" said his fellow countryman. "We have learned that to wear it around the right leg is a superstition." That is the kind of thing which has happened in more than one country. I earnestly pray that it will not happen in Portugal.
I have said that we cannot expect a British Government to put the whole world right, but we can play our proper part in the alliance. I think that we are doing this. I know the criticisms of our recent defence cuts, but those cuts were not unreasonable in view of our economic situation, and I think that our allies understand them. But it would be the height of folly to push them any further;


that would be a defeat for this country and for the alliance.
If we also continue to make it clear on every possible occasion, as the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said, that among the causes in which we believe are the causes of the oppressed and the deprived throughout the world, then despite our limited power we can have a policy of which this country can be proud.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Julian Critchley: I believe that the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) was right to strike a sombre and realistic note, for not since 1949 has the international situation been as sombre as it is today.
I was grateful to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary for interrupting himself for the umpteenth time to answer a question about the CSCE. I hope that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will not go happily to a summit in Helsinki without first having extracted from the Russians the concessions that are necessary in the third basket, associated with the free movement of ideas and people, and in the first basket, which is the area of the CSCE concerned with the advance notification of military measures, the CBM. Without concessions on those two baskets, the Prime Minister and everyone else should stay at home and there should be no summit at Helsinki.
The theme of my short speech is the erosion of the alliance position in the eastern Mediterranean, and, indeed, in the Mediterranean as a whole. Europe is in need of both economic and military security. OPEC and the oil embargo have robbed us of the one, whilst inflation is robbing us of the other. For six days last week I visited Athens, Ankara and Ismir with the Defence Committee of the Western European Union Assembly, of which I am the Chairman. I returned home the day before yesterday. Hence, the theme of my speech is the erosion of the alliance position in that part of the world.
The purpose of the Committee's visit was to limit the damage that had already been done to the alliance by Cyprus, but more especially the damage that is threatened not by Cyprus but by the dispute over the Aegean Sea. The real flash-

point between the Greeks and the Turks lies not in Cyprus but over oil and rights in the Aegean Sea.
After July 1974 the Greeks announced that they would quit the military organisation of the NATO alliance. Since July 1974 no military flights of allied aircraft have been allowed over Greek territory. Somewhat ironically, NATO aircraft flying eastwards to Ankara have to fly either over Sofia, to the north, for which they get rights from Bulgaria, or way south of Cyprus and then make a left turn. Moreover, there have been no joint military exercises using the Greek armed forces. NATO will fulfil its existing financial obligations towards the Greeks which are considerable because NATO meets the bill for 90 per cent. of the Greek infrastructure, for as long as the early warning system and other communications facilities remain operable within Greece.
Sooner or later negotiations must open between the Greek Government and NATO, but the question is with whom in NATO the Greeks will negotiate. There is a question mark over Dr. Luns in this context. Negotiations have begun between the Greeks and the Americans as to the military arrangements that they have entered into in the past. Here the Americans have a high card, in that the Greeks want to hold on to the small nuclear weapons that are on Greek soil under American charge and control. Were the Greeks to leave the military organisation of NATO, there would be no legal basis whatsoever for American nuclear arms remaining in Greece.
In summary, NATO's policy with regard to Greece is one of masterly inactivity.
As I have already said, Cyprus is not the flashpoint—it is the Aegean. Mr. Averoff, the Minister of Defence in Greece, said on 9th January 1975:
In our own sea, the Aegean, our attitude will be aggressive if necessary, and victory will be certain.
The Law of the Sea Conference is now taking place in Geneva. I know from conversations which I had in Ankara and elsewhere that the unilateral extension of the control of Greece over the waters of the Aegean up to a limit of 12 miles would be regarded in Ankara as an act of war, the authorities standing on the defensive in Thrace but mounting an im-


mediate invasion of many of the islands, many of which are no more than between a mile and four miles from the Aegean shores of Anatolia. One cannot stress this too much, because there is a real danger that unless the Greeks are prepared to act with circumspection and care there will be war between those NATO allies over the Aegean.
After Athens we went to Ankara. Clearly, after what has happened in Greece it is vitally important to the alliance that Turkey remains a member of NATO, fully committed to the defence of the alliance. However, in recent weeks the United States has slapped an embargo upon arms to Turkey. The lesson of the arms embargo is that Members of Parliament should not attempt to exercise diplomacy of any kind whatever, because the linkage that the Americans have insisted on—namely, that they would renew arms supplies to Turkey if there were Turkish concessions over Cyprus—is no way to deal with the Turks, who are not the sort of people who respond to that kind of threat.
The action of the United States Senate and Congress in preventing ammunition, spares and engines being sent to their allies must have a number of effects. The first effect of the embargo must be to limit the war-making capacity of the Turks. The second effect will be to worsen the relationship between the United States and the Turks, and, more importantly, sooner or later will oblige the Turks to come to the Foreign Secretary, or to go to Bonn, or even to Paris, if not to Brussels, and ask us or them or all of us to supply the arms which the Americans are not doing. The day that that comes about we shall all be in an extremely awkward position.
On the question of the embargo the Foreign Secretary in Ankara told the Committee that Turkey might be compelled to reduce her commitments within the framework of common defence. What that threat amounts to is that Ankara, if it so wishes, will remove or prevent the use of the United States radar early-warning and other surveillance facilities which operate out of Turkey and which are not covered by the 1969 agreement.
After Ankara, we travelled to Ismir, which is the headquarters of Land Forces, South-East. There has been no realistic

war planning in Ismir since July 1974, and no NATO exercises have taken place. Land Forces, South-East relies heavily on reinforcements from overseas, but the British defence review threatens to do away with the Ace Mobile Force, which had a function in that part of the world. It has said that it will do away with other large brigade-sized reinforcements, which were angled for the southern flank. There is anxiety at Land Forces, South-East that the radar installations in Cyprus might also go, and that is the most important single military facility upon the island of Cyprus.
Over and above the failure of the British to meet their obligations to the southern flank for reinforcement, there are indications, too, that the United States is reluctant to earmark forces for the reinforcement of the southern flank. The southern flank suffers from the same weaknesses as the central front—lack of reinforcements, limited reception facilities, especially for air force reinforcements and lack of inter-operability and national logistics. Yet NATO's southern flank is in much more danger than the central front. We have only to look westwards to Portugal, Spain and Italy, let alone to Greece and Ankara, to see that the flank of NATO is severely threatened and may well be turned.
However, Her Majesty's Government stoutly proclaim that in the defence review they have done nothing that will harm NATO. What they mean is that they have done nothing that will harm the central front. There is far more to NATO than that. More allied troops are committed to the southern flank of NATO than are to be found on the central front.
At a time when Europe's economic security has vanished, her military security is being threatened, and her political security is being seriously undermined, only a mere handful of Members—there were fewer than 30 on the Government benches in the middle of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary's speech—are prepared to debate the really important strategic issues of the day. What a parish council we have become! We in this House make tremendous play of our so-called sovereignty. I often wonder how much it matters whether we have it or not!

5.51 p.m.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: I make no apology for speaking only about Cyprus. It will help me to follow the advice of the Chair to be brief, and the tragedy of the island symbolises several problems of universal application.
The tragedy of Cyprus raises questions about the credibility and authority of the United Nations, and, as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) explained so clearly when he spoke, of the future viability of NATO. It raises the question of the meaning, or lack of meaning, of Commonwealth membership and membership of the Council of Europe.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary gave a great deal of thought to the Cyprus troubles when they began, and put in a great deal of work. But I can say without just the benefit of hindsight, because some of us said so at the time, that it is a tragedy that we did not fulfil our obligations under the treaty of guarantee. To the people of Cyprus and many of our other allies we seem in effect to have abrogated that treaty. I believe that it was because we allowed ourselves to follow American advice to take no action that inadvertently we precipitated the Turkish invasion, with all its tragic consequences.
I appreciate that my right hon. Friend had to deal with Cyprus very briefly today. I hope that soon we may have a fuller statement on the subject.
My right hon. Friend seemed to imply that it is now just for the leaders of the two communities to get on with their talks, with the blessing of Dr. Waldheim of the United Nations. But that is not the reality of the situation. It is not possible for Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash to reach meaningful decisions while the Turkish Army dominates the richer part of Cyprus. It is Ankara, not Mr. Denktash, that is making the decisions, just as it was Athens that dominated Samson in the disastrous coup that precipitated the tragedy.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend refer to his talks with Mr. Ecevit. I should like to have heard more about what was said. I understand that it is not likely that Mr. Ecevit will again become Prime Minister of Turkey, and that it

is possible that the next Prime Minister will be more Right wing, more intransigent—possibly Suleyman Demiree, the head of the National Front. I do not think that that is very encouraging, but perhaps we may hear about the talks later.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Aldershot said about NATO and arms. I must take issue with him on the matter. I absolutely agree with the instinct of the American parliamentarians that arms to Turkey should stop, rather than with Dr. Kissinger's policy. We are all members of NATO. We on the Government benches have many arguments about defence, but I do not believe that any British taxpayers want to make their contribution to NATO in order that a member of NATO may invade and occupy a Commonwealth country. The hon. Gentleman said that it would be a bad day when Turkey started asking other NATO members to make up the deficit. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that already Dr. Luns is shopping around on Turkey's behalf. I find this shocking, because every member of NATO should join the United States in telling Turkey straight away "We, too, will not give you arms for the invasion and suppression of the people of Cyprus."
Every country in NATO is a member of the United Nations. Does not membership of the United Nations and the implementation of its resolutions bind NATO countries? How can we have these dual standards in international alliances? I usually criticise my right hon. Friends for being too pro-American, but I should be glad just this once if they would follow a common policy with the United States.
We have heard very little about what can be done in Cyprus. My right hon. Friend and many others realise the bitterness and dismay felt by many United Kingdom citizens in Cyprus, who find that Her Majesty's Government are apparently totally impotent, and that in Turkish-occupied Cyprus possession is ten-tenths of the law.
We want the talks to go well, but what about their background? It is the background that makes progress so difficult. It is hard for Clerides and the Greek Cypriots to carry on discussions when about 180,000 Greek Cypriots are refugees in their own country, 13,000 of them still


living in tents, and the economy of the country is dead.
There is a great deal of questioning in Cyprus of my right hon. Friend's action in facilitating the transfer of a number of Turkish refugees via Turkey back to Northern Cyprus. I am sure that he acted from humanitarian motives. I believe that he hoped to spark off a response from the Turks, and that they would become more helpful to the Greek refugees. Unfortunately, that gesture was unrewarded, and it has been much misunderstood in Cyprus. I hope that further background information may be given to help restore understanding.
I wish to refer briefly to what I fear is the danger of allowing the present partition to become a fait accompli by inertia. It really is absurd to talk about any partition in Cyprus. Here is this tiny island, of just 3,500 square miles, with a population of 632,000, of which 18 per cent. are Turkish at present. Here I interpose a question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I have been told that many of the Turkish Cypriot refugees who have returned to Cyprus via Turkey have been joined by a large number of mainland Turks who are being imported into Cyprus with the deliberate intent of swelling the Turkish proportion of the population.
Anyone who knows the island—I know that many hon. Members know it and love it—will realise that there is not a clear ethnic distribution and that to have a Turkish part and a Greek part means a wholesale uprooting of people, as we have seen, massive relocation, and social, occupational and economic upheaval. For instance, half of Nicosia's water comes from Morphou. Most of Famagusta's water comes from Larnaca. There are all sorts of difficulties. There are difficulties in the location of hospitals, the number of doctors and craftsmen, and the variety of crops and natural resources.
I believe that the disaster of partition should be buried with the idea of Enosis.
We should try to help. Help we must, because we have two sovereign bases in Cyprus. We are a guarantor Power—or are supposed to be. We must help to work out some system. There must be a temporary system of communal local government. I would hope that this

could be on some multi-regional basis and not on the basis of a partition merely into two halves.
I should have liked to develop this theme. However I merely say that I hope that we regret—many of us do—partition in Ireland. There have been many references in the debate to Palestine. I am tragically reminded of Palestine when considering Cyprus. In Palestine there was a similar situation—the pattern of refugees, hasty partition and decisions imposed by force from outside. There were hundreds of displaced people with nothing to lose. In Palestine still, decades later, the wound has grown worse instead of healing.
President Makarios has not been given enough credit for the comparative peacefulness in the Greek part of the island. I believe that if partition were to be enforced it would not be possible to restrain violence among the Greek Cypriot people. Goodness knows, some of us in the House remember those bitter years when EOKA took on the British Army. There would be a terrible peril of violence in the mountains and hills of Cyprus if this decision were reached.
One of the most dreadful results of the events in Cyprus has been the tension between Britain and Greece. Many of us remember Greece with affection, not only as a place for taking holidays—with certain interruptions—but as a country with which we have deep traditional affinities, a country which was one of our bravest allies during the war. It is a tragedy that in that country now there is a misunderstanding, a puzzlement and a certain bitterness about the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding Cyprus. I hope, therefore, that we shall see some progress on that front.
I was glad that the Foreign Secretary referred at length to the increasing understanding with the Soviet Union. One of the results of the policy in Cyprus has been that many people among the leadership on that island now are turning their eyes to Moscow and to Syria. It may be that in my right hon. Friend's discussions with the Russians it will be possible for us to talk together about Cyprus. After all, there is no more reason why we should not talk to the Russians than there is that we should do what the Americans have told us to do in Cyprus. Of course, I should prefer to see the United Nations


as the strength and authority there. But if it comes to holding another conference, another Geneva, it may be that it should be on a wider basis and that other countries should be asked to help.
I apologise—perhaps I should not apologise, because we have been asked to be brief—if I have not fully explained all the thoughts that have been in my mind. I have many more about this matter and other subjects for this debate. My brevity has been in the interests of my fellow Members.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. David Madel: I shall follow your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and not go on a Cook's tour in the debate. I should like to comment on Cyprus, following what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) has said. I very much agree with the Foreign Secretary that the debate has come at a very opportune time and that we do not have enough opportunities to comment on foreign affairs in the House.
We are now facing a situation in which America is having another agonising reappraisal of its power and influence—as it was so described in the 1950s. Indeed, this was extremely well summed up in the leading editorial in the Financial Times of today, which says:
The role of Congress in U.S. foreign policy has changed dramatically in recent months. It is seeking an influence on policy-making which was quite unknown even at the height of the anti-Vietnam campaign.
The editorial goes on to say:
Perhaps also it is a reflection of changing U.S. attitudes to foreign policy and a retreat from overseas commitments.
My view is that the days have gone when a Secretary of State in America can really run the show almost by himself, and that the very close liaison be-between the famous Secretaries of State, which has been of great advantage to this country since 1945, has probably gone. Whoever is in power in the White House is forced to pay much greater attention to the views of Congress. This inevitably means that the United States' response to changing situations and new events is bound to be slower than it has been in the past. This is something we ignore at our peril and something we must con-

sider very carefully when discussing both Cyprus and the Middle East.
I agree with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South that there is considerable alarm in Cyprus that there may be permanent partition. A long spell of the Turkish Army in Cyprus is bound to affect the internal situation in Greece. It would not be the first time that a Greek Government had come to grief as a result of events in Cyprus. We all rejoice that dictatorship has ended in Greece. We all endorse what was said by the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), that we do not want to slip from the present position to a dictatorship either of the Left or of the Right.
I hope that the Minister of State will say something about how much aid will be needed to get the economy of Cyprus going again. How much joint European effort will there be? How much aid will be needed to resettle the refugees? Furthermore—although this may appear to be a mundane problem—what can we do with our European allies to help school and education programmes in Cyprus, which have been seriously upset by the events of 1974?
Again, there is an anxiety that the Turkish Army may nibble away at what is known as the Morphou-Famagusta Line. But the central issue is how to protect minorities. Perhaps if we had had more United Nations troops in Cyprus there would have been less anxiety in Turkey. We hear talk of a possible bi-zonal State, and mention of a thinning out of Turkish troops and whether that would help. I hope that we may have a fuller statement from the Minister of State this evening.
As the hon. Lady said, what goes on in Cyprus affects the internal situation in Greece and Turkey, and if guerrilla warfare breaks out—this would not he new to Cyprus—inevitably Greece and Turkey could be drawn in. At a time when they are both grappling with world financial difficulties this would have a serious effect. When we consider the close relationship of Greece and Turkey with the EEC I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) that here is a great opportunity for European co-operation to bring about a solution to this difficulty.
I want to say a few words about the Middle East. What has become absolutely clear in the debate is that the Arabs cannot make war without Egypt and that they cannot make peace without the Palestinians. If Israel and the Arab States cannot agree on anything else, I am sure that they can agree on that.
In a sense, Dr. Kissinger's efforts were bound to come to a full stop. We all share the disappointment that that has happened, but it was inevitable. 1 t was succinctly put in the editorial in The Guardian on Monday, which said:
His"—
Dr. Kissinger's—
remarkable and untiring efforts have shown that agreement of sorts is possible even between Israel and Syria. But these have been essentially confidence-building operations and in their own way peripheral. Central issues such as the Palestinians and the future of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have not been tackled.
Those matters have got to be tackled. If we have a Geneva Conference, we are bound to have a step-by-step process in Geneva. We do not imagine that all the problems will be shovelled out on to the table and all the grand solutions found there and then.
I should like to say a few words on the Egypt-Israel front. If there is a military clash between Egypt and Israel, inevitably the other Arab States will be drawn in. A solution to the Israel-Egypt threat will not solve the fundamental conflict, as the editorial in The Guardian said, but it would give a breathing space and allow negotiations to concentrate on the central matter. Obviously Israel's anxiety is understandable vis à vis the passes in Sinai. Obviously Egypt's desire for the return of the Abu Rudeis oilfields is understandable. We should move towards having a temporary international zone in that area, it being clearly understood that when the central issues have been solved, that area will be returned to Egypt. If we had an international zone round those points of difficulty which caused Dr. Kissinger's initiative to be upset, there would be a breathing space, and Israel and the Arab States could concentrate on the more fundamental matters.
Any increase in United Nations troops in the area requires that they are put on a proper financial footing and that all countries with an interest in peace

should make a contribution towards the United Nations' force. We should aim towards a temporary international zone between Israel and Syria. At present the central question is the town of Kuneitra. It could be rebuilt. With the Arabs' oil revenues, it would not cost too much for it to be rebuilt. That would be the centre of the United Nations zone. If we could have such a zone it would allow a breathing space and time to get down to the political questions which dominate the area.
However, when we have done that, we have to come to the central issue to which my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) referred—the problem of Israel and the Palestinians. The Times put this accurately on Monday, when it said:
On the other hand there is no point in the PLO going to the Geneva Conference unless it has a clear idea of what it hopes to obtain there. Mr. Arafat has told the world his dreams, but it is still waiting to hear his wakeful thoughts.
If we had a West Bank State of Palestine, what exactly would it stand for? Surely the Arab States must realise the extreme sensitivity felt in Israel as to what its new neighbour might be and what it would stand for. One hopes that if one had such a State in due course a sort of Benelux relationship could exist between Israel and its new neighbour. Inevitably the economics of such a State are difficult, because it would have to have a Mediterranean port as its outlet for its agricultural produce. We must not forget that the West Bank is one of the richest agricultural areas in the whole of the Middle East.
If Mr. Arafat goes to Geneva he must say clearly what he stands for. He must sincerely endorse what President Sadat said in 1971, which changed the whole relationship between Israel and the Arab States. Mr. Sadat said that he was looking for an agreement with the State of Israel. It is those last four words that matter. No hope of agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Army exists unless we have a clear commitment that a new West Bank State of Palestine would exist with the State of Israel. Those would be the operative words.
Obviously, if one goes through the political questions, one comes to the question of Jerusalem. That is most difficult


to solve and it ought to be left to the end. If there were a new State on the West Bank and there were a reasonable relationship between it and Israel it would not be too difficult to solve the problem of Jerusalem. As has been said many times in the debate, if there is another conflict in the area it will be even more difficult to stop. If there is another conflict in the area it will have serious economic effects on Western Europe. The point to remember is that if one can get peace between Israel and Egypt, the other Arab States are unlikely to go to war. There is, as my right hon Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, a major chance for a European political rôle in this area. It cannot all be left to the United States and to Congress. At all costs we must try to avoid a conflict. We must try to get a breathing space so that those central political issues between Israel and the Arab States can start to be negotiated.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: A strong welcome ought to be given to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said about his proposals for Kingston in the matter of the stabilisation of prices of primary products. Some of us would regard this as one of the most important matters facing the world, and certainly an indication of the value of the Commonwealth. I hope the message will go out from here that we wish them well in these complex talks.
I wish to deal with four mundane matters of trade in so far as they affect the Foreign Office. I start with what I know is a delicate issue. The truth is that many of us, when we have gone abroad or talked to business men here, time and time again have discovered that the BBC broadcasts from London are widely listened to and, at the same time, run down Britain and give the impression of a tale of woe. People listen to the BBC precisely because of its known veracity, the truth of its reports and the way in which they are presented. The fact remains that it is often an exercise in flagellation by the British, in an apparent love of sheer masochism, which makes it very difficult for our traders, exporters and chambers of commerce abroad to sell British products in the sort of volume that we would like to see.

Every industrial dispute seems to be magnified, and some people have the impression that very little happens in Britain other than industrial disputes.
All I say to the Foreign Office is this: could it not, on this delicate and difficult issue, at least get round the table with the Chairman and Governors of the BBC and ask whether some good news from Britain could not at least occasionally be broadcast on the world service. I leave it at that. We should not underestimate the effect, particularly in the Arab world, of this constant running down of what happens here, so that people jump to the conclusion "If we go to Britain we cannot be sure that our supplies or spare parts will arrive on time". Sometimes this is true, but very often we simply talk ourselves into unnecessary difficulties.
The second question that I should like to raise concerns trade missions. I know something about this, having been fortunate enough to go on a British trade mission to China in 1971. I concede that there is a good argument for having a trade mission when opening up a market, so that firms can follow up and do the work from which the trade flows.
We have reached a situation in which there seem to be endless trade missions leaving this country and possibly getting in each other's way. Between 13 and 22 different trade missions go to Brazil this year. I ask the Minister of State, who is a Midlander, whether it is sensible for the Walsall Chamber of Commerce to sponsor a trade mission to Brazil. We shall get every small authority empire building. As all these missions ask to see important Ministers the natural reaction is, "The Inglese again".
Other countries give more coherent thought to their trade missions. They institute a pattern and are relatively more successful. The Foreign Office should have discussions with the home Departments involved to find out whether this country is well served by an endless flow of trade missions and whether we understand the purposes that those missions wish to achieve. Would it not be better if some of our businessmen could spend longer representing their firms, especially in the Arab world and in South America? The money allowed for this trade mission activity is often spent if not on jaunts then on exercises that approach junketing.
My third point relates to the whole question of consultancy. Here the comparison is with France where the Soufra Electrique and the Soufra-Mines do a real consultancy job. They make sure that every design and specification they give is geared to French products. Here, Britain is in a difficulty. British consultancy has a high reputation, because of its objectivity. Is it right that British consultants should continually recommend Swedish, French and German equipment while almost leaning over backwards to play down our own? Many chambers of commerce have the impression that British consultants are acting to the advantage of British consultancy but not to the advantage of British industry. I realise that it is difficult for the Foreign Office to interfere. The trade officials in our embassies are getting higher reputations and they might ask about this.
Finally, I turn to the question of incoming students, which is intimately related to trade. I am told that this year Venezuela wishes to send us between 7,000 and 10,000 students and that over a two- or three-year period we are hoping to accept 6,000 students. This is fine, because those Venezuelan students, trained in Britain, will almost certainly return home and take up positions where they can order British equipment, which will be to the advantage of this country.
On the other hand, I fear for the South American student, who often comes from a small town. He will be let loose in polytechnics in Glasgow, Birmingham or some other city where pastoral care is less than adequate. We know how many students come to this country and become lost. They do not carry out their studies properly and go back disillusioned. Some thought should be given to preliminary language training, which may take six months or a year. Many developing countries are in a position to afford this training, so it should not be a problem for the Treasury. There should be serious discussion on how to create an infrastructure so that those students who come to Britain have a chance of doing well. They would return home with a favourable impression of Britain and may be in a position to order British equipment.
Some of us are saddened by the plight of Cambodia. I had the good fortune to see Phnom Penh in better days, under

Prince Sihanouk. I realise that the Foreign Secretary has neither the power nor the ability to bring the war in Indo-China any nearer an end. We have to pose one question. Together with the Russians, we are in a unique position because of the rôle we played in the early 1960s at the various conferences which took place on Cambodia. Should we not at least get together and try to ameliorate the awful situation which appears on our television screens night after night? Is it not at least worth some kind of a try?

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Peter Blaker: I should like to return later to the point which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) made in his introductory remarks about the importance of the forthcoming conference at Kingston and the plans to achieve some agreement on the stabilisation of raw material prices.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) referred to the small attendance in this debate at a time which is more sombre than any since 1949. That remark, with which I agree, is connected with the theme that I wish to develop. During foreign affairs debates and at Question Time, it strikes me increasingly how few places there are in the world in which Britain is able effectively to exercise influence on its own. There are even fewer places now than there were a few years ago.
The Foreign Secretary mentioned Cyprus and the efforts which Mr. Ivor Richard has devoted to that problem over three weeks in New York. A few years ago it would have been dealt with in a more direct and a different fashion. The right hon. Gentleman referred to Rhodesia and said that we should encourage the people there to come together and deal with their problems. That, also, is a change from some years ago.
The Foreign Secretary explained, too, why Britain had not been playing a more direct political rôle in the Middle East. He did not refer to the Gulf. There we are no longer advisers and keepers of the peace; we go there as borrowers and as salesmen, and we seem to do rather better at the former than at the latter.
The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) mentioned South-East


Asia, where it seems that, after all, the domino theory may be in danger of coming to pass. I can remember the time, not long ago, when the situation in South-East Asia would have provoked a full day's debate, with great feeling by all hon. Members. That is no longer the case. I understand why, in his speech, The Foreign Secretary was unable to include a passage about South-East Asia. He kindly gave way to many interjections. However, it is interesting that that is one of the passages he thought it possible to drop.
The Foreign Secretary referred to Portugal, our oldest ally. We welcome the fact that he visited that country a few weeks ago. However, with respect to the right hon. Gentleman, it is hard to see what effect that visit has had.
Apart from the reference to Cyprus the right hon. Gentleman did not mention the United Nations. The last Labour Government made a particular feature of its devotion to the United Nations and of the great efforts they would make there. I wonder what has happened to that?
I have made inquiries about the time it takes to get satisfaction from countries which expropriate the assets of British subjects. It is interesting to note that it is now more than two and a half years since the measures taken by General Amin to expropriate the property of British subjects in Uganda. As I understand it, we have not even begun the negotiations which, we hope, will lead to some settlement. I compare that situation with that which prevailed in relation to Egypt in the latter part of the 1950s, when, within two and a half years, not only had negotiations begun, but compensation had been paid.
I mention these examples not to place any blame on the Government. That is not my purpose now. I mention them to show that our influence in the world, when acting on our own, is greatly diminished. This is the result of our economic weakness, among other things. It is also a consequence of the fact that we have not yet found a framework within which to put our foreign policy. We can get a clue about what is the right framework if we look back at some of

the successes which Governments have recently achieved. Here I include the previous Conservative Government.
The Foreign Secretary mentioned the conference on security in Europe. Whether or not the likely results from this conference are regarded as a success, what has undoubtedly been a success has been the effort which the Nine European countries have made in co-operating and achieving a common line throughout the conference. Another example is the success of the Chancellor in persuading the International Monetary Fund to accept the plan for the recycling of petrodollars.
I wish to refer, too, to the success of the Lomé Convention, bringing the Nine Community countries and 46 countries of the developing world into what has been described by Mr. Cheysson, the Commissioner responsible for aid in the Community, as a revolutionary new relationship. This convention involves stability for the export earnings of the developing countries and holds out the promise of something on which we can build to achieve stability in the supply of our raw materials. It is interesting that this revolutionary agreement has been achieved without any feeling on the part of the 46 developing countries that they are being subjected to something that has a neo-colonial tinge.
Another success has been the achievement of improvements in generalised preferences for developing countries. A further success has been the working out of a position in the GATT negotiations which are due to take place in Tokyo before long. The common feature of all these successes is that they have been worked out within the framework of the Nine.
The Foreign Secretary referred to the visit which he and the Prime Minister paid to Moscow and claimed that that was a success, too. I shall not go into that aspect. There is debate by some hon. Members about the merits of the line of credit arrangement. But I put this question to the House: would the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been as well received in Moscow as would the representatives of France and Germany —in spite of the fact that we are a long way behind France


and Germany in economic power—if we had not been a member of the Economic Community? That is a relevant question.
I suggest that the natural rôle for Britain to take is as the leader in developing a foreign policy for the Community. It is a natural rôle for us to take, because of our experience. Mr. Cheysson paid great tribute to that experience when he talked about the success of the Lomé negotiations. He said that the agreement could not have been achieved without Britain's knowledge of the world.
I do not suggest that it is possible for a foreign policy to spring fully fledged from the brow of the Foreign Secretary or his European colleagues. What I do suggest is that we should consciously start the process of creating a European foreign policy by building brick upon brick. I am glad to say that we have begun this in Cyprus, albeit in a small way, with the communiqué from the Dublin Summit on which all Nine countries agreed. It did not take us very far but it is something. Let us build on it.
We need a common foreign policy towards Greece and Turkey. We need one towards Portugal, though there it may be rather late—but better late than never. I put this question to the Foreign Secretary: would it not have been a great help to the right hon. Gentleman if, when he went to Portugal, he had gone not simply as the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom and one of the principal figures in the British Socialist Party, but also as a leading figure in a coalition of Socialist parties extending across the Nine members of the European Community?
We need very soon to establish a common foreign policy towards Spain, especially in view of events in Portugal. We need a common policy towards the Middle East. I agree very much with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) about the participation of Europe in the Middle East. I believe the Arabs would welcome the Nine playing a greater rôle, including a political rôle, in the Middle East.
Perhaps we should see whether we can work out a common policy on the question of credit towards Eastern Europe. I wonder whether it is right that we, who, economically, are relatively weak at the

moment, should be competing with our friends in the Community in transferring resources to the Soviet Union. In many cases our Community friends are very much stronger than us. We should certainly be working out a common foreign policy to handle world development. There is a great deal more to be done. The Community recognises this. In the eyes of the Community the Lomé Convention is only a beginning.
I welcome what the Foreign Secretary said about Kingston and what the Government hope to achieve. I suggest that it will be more effective if we appear at Kingston in the rôle of a country committed to remaining in the European Community and taking a common policy line.
Coming down to a rather more pedestrian level, perhaps we can get together on a common line for the Nine to take when the property of one of them is expropriated in cases like the Ugandan situation a few years ago.
I am suggesting that we can build an effective rôle for ourselves in the world by working out a common foreign policy. I suggest that the weight of the Nine working together is greater than the sum of the weight of the Nine if each country works separately. This is true whether we talk about direct relations with individual countries or about the weight which the Nine can carry in international organisations.
I am convinced that the leverage we can exert in, for example. the IMF, the United Nations, GATT, OECD and conferences dealing with ad hoc issues, would be much greater if we had worked out a common foreign policy in advance. I am not talking about a federation; this objective can be achieved by co-operation. It has been done in preparing our common line for the conference on security in Europe. Nor is what I am suggesting anti-American. Here again, the conference on security in Europe was a good example. It is true that at the beginning, when the Nine were first working together, the Americans showed some anxiety, but now I believe they recognise that for the Nine to work out a common and sensible line is a positive advantage not only for the success of the conference but for the Americans themselves.
The Foreign Secretary said that we must build a healthy and balanced relationship with the United States, and I entirely agree. President Kennedy talked of an Atlantic alliance based on twin pillars. If we remain in the Economic Community we have now a chance of building twin pillars, and it is no good if one pillar is much stronger than the other. Therefore, it is in the long-term interests of the United States and the eastern pillar of that alliance should itself be strong. If Europe plays a more united and stronger rôle it will be in the interests both of the United States and of Europe itself, and I believe this is a role in which Britain can take a lead.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Greville Janner: The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) has made an important and interesting case on which some of us would agree with him provided the common foreign policy was one which appealed to us. The trouble is that a common foreign policy may mean the foreign policy of France, for example, with which few of us would agree on many issues. We have to consider very carefully how such a common foreign policy would evolve.
I would dearly love to roam the world in this debate and talk perhaps of the survival difficulties of India or the economic problems of Chile, or of Gibraltar, Turkey or Cyprus. I hope the House will forgive me if I restrict myself to areas with which I am deeply concerned and of which I have some special knowledge. I refer, in particular, to the Middle East and to relations with the Soviet Union.
The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) made a characteristic speech putting forward what is quite clearly the Arab case. Towards the end, in a revealing phrase, he said that Europe has most to lose from the outbreak of another war in the Middle East. In my submission, the people who have most to lose are those countries in the Middle East which will lose their sons and fathers whatever the outcome of the war. Certainly, so far as Israel is concerned there are not enough sons and fathers, and the tragedy of the October war was not the difference in the size of the forces but the dreadful

aura of tragedy which hung over that tiny country with so many of its young people killed and maimed.
When we discus the Middle East we talk of it objectively because we are not that close, but sitting in a kibbutz near the Golan Heights one has a different view of where the guns used to be. Discussing the Golan Heights there, one does it from a different and much more dangerous angle. The hon. Member spoke of withdrawal leading to peace; but the question the Israelis ask is: "Would it lead to peace or would it lead to another war, with the other side starting from so much nearer to our homes, where our wives and children live?" It is a fair question, and if any of us lived there we would necessarily ask it. It is not enough to say that there is a body of opinion which is prepared, after Israel moves back, to recognise its existence.
Any Israeli Government would have to have far more than that if Israel is to move back from a position of reasonable military security, which is all it has, and any Israeli Government would have to convince their own people that they were behaving sensibly or they would be thrown out. Some of us sometimes forget that Israel is a democracy like our own, with a Government who depend upon the consent of the people. It is a Government who can fall in an election or can resign. It is a Government who, one hopes, will survive the kind of tragedy that overtook King Faisal today. It is a Government who do not depend upon one person. It is not a feudal kingdom.
I sometimes wonder why so many of my hon. Friends, as Socialists, are so attached to such feudal kingdoms and why they do not appreciate the democracy which is the only one in the area, a democracy which will survive if its people are prepared, as undoubtedly they are, to fight for that survival. The question Dr. Kissinger had to face was: would he be able to convince the Israelis, on their side, that to withdraw from the passes and oilfields would lead to a firm recognition that there would not be, almost immediately, another war with hostilities starting so much nearer home?
The Israelis were not prepared to give such assurances, so, alas, another opportunity for peace has gone. On the other hand, there are Israelis who feel that it is


better not to have a withdrawal in return for nothing, or for a piece of paper, than it would have been to have withdrawn and got their guarantee with no guarantee that it would have survived, because who knows whether another disaster may overtake President Sadat as it has overtaken King Faisal? It is a very volatile area, and régimes in all countries there other than Israel depend upon the survival of one person. We cannot provide the firm guarantees, nor can America.
The hon. Member for Westbury said that the United Nations emergency force provided a guarantee in 1967, but as soon as there was trouble that force was asked to move out. It is important that we should have a United Nations buffer and that the leases of UN forces should be renewed, because those forces provide at least some kind of deterrent against any attempt to move in. But we must recognise that the force is not very great and would move away at the request of either party at any time.
It does not help to oversimplify the refugee problem, to ignore the fact that times have moved forward since 1947, whether hon. Members like it or not, and that Israel has in the meantime absorbed hundreds of thousands of refugees from Arab countries, countries with vast resources which have declined to absorb them into their own countries, for obvious reasons.
It does not help to oversimplify the PLO problem. Terrorism is only the beginning. It is not just a distaste of people for negotiating with terrorists, which one can overcome. It is a question of finding something to talk about with them.
There were references to terrorists from Cyprus and Kenya, who were fighting for their area of territory from which they wanted to get us out. If hon. Members are saying that the Arab terrorists are fighting to get the Israelis out of Israel we know where we stand. No Israeli Government could conceivably negotiate with them on that basis.
Again, terrorism in its dreadful history, has generally confined itself to attacks on armed forces in the country concerned, with the incidental miserable deaths of civilians in the process, deaths regretted by all. The terrorism of the PLO is nothing of the kind. It is terrorism deli-

berately directed at women and children, at civilians, and not only in Israel but outside Israel, and at not only Israelis but others—because many of those who have suffered have not been Israelis or even Jews.

Mr. Madel: On the question of terrorism, does the hon. and learned Member feel that if there was some solution between Israel and Egypt and an end to the terrorist attacks that occur, such as at the Tel Aviv Hotel, it would be possible for Israel to co-exist one day with some form of Palestine State?

Mr. Janner: That is a perfectly fair question. It the terrorism was stopped and terrorists were prepared to recognise that Israel has a right to exist, and if the Palestine State was not to be a mere tributary of the Soviet Union, the answer undoubtedly is "Yes". I believe that that would be accepted, if not by all Israelis then at least by a majority, because I have yet to meet an Israeli who did not deeply want peace; and I have yet to meet one who hates the Arabs—a remarkable situation in view of the wars, in which so many have lost members of their families.
Dr. Nahum Goldmann, President of the World Jewish Congress, said in an interview quoted by the hon. Member for Westbury that it was possible that negotiations would take place with the Arabs. But the hon. Gentleman did not quote the rest. Mr. Goldmann said:
… if they are prepared to recognise the existence of the State and give up terrorism".
Even then his views were not accepted by everyone, and it is not for us to judge how we would feel if we were in that country trying to survive.
What hope is there? Geneva is a place where people can come together. No doubt there will be pressures by the United States on Israel. The question is whether there will be pressures on the Arab States by the Soviet Union, and, if so, with what effect? Are the realities of the situation to be recognised?
The problem of the Soviet Union is something we come face to face with because we cannot discuss the Middle East without considering where Russia stands. We have more opportunities than ever to discuss this with the Russians, and I welcome the visit of the Prime


Minister to Moscow and the visit of trade unionists to that city, and I welcome return visits of trade unionists here, within sensible and tactful limits. For me that limit is reached when the invitation extends to the former head of the KGB.
This morning some of my hon. Friends and I went to see Mr. Len Murray to assure him that we were not attacking him or the TUC. We told him that we understood the difficulties and welcomed the visit of trade unionists, but we also asked whether he would not emphasise to the Soviet Union the feeling which I believe is shared by the vast majority of hon. Members, that this man Shelepin would be a very unwelcome guest.
Mr. Len Murray declined to state when the group is coming or where it is going and gave me permission to say so. He said, he wanted to keep the visit very private. In other words, these people are to be shepherded in and out of back doors like a group of common criminals. That is a pity, because I would like them to see what British life is like and understand our problems. I would like them to see the demonstrations which I am sure will take place and which I hope will always be lawful and peaceful, because otherwise they will cause harm to those they are trying to help.
I hope that many trade unionists who meet this group will take the opportunity to show that we care about people, not only here but also in the Soviet Union. We know that the KGB has instituted a further campaign of persecution and harassment of Soviet people, including particularly trade unionists, two of whom, Mr. Boris Tsitlionok, a toolmaker, and Mark Nashbits, a dentist, are coming up on trial precisely because they took part in a demonstration in Moscow and stood holding a banner. They are liable to a prison sentence of three years.
I was asked today by the Press whether it would not be better that there should not be demonstrations so that people may see that we are free. I say that we have demonstrations because we are free, and we can speak our minds freely in this House and in the streets and in the working men's clubs.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I have listened with great sympathy to my hon. and learned Friend.

It would be very helpful if occasionally he made it clear that there are people other than Jews who are dissidents in the Soviet Union and that many of us are deeply concerned about the free movement of all people, not just Jews, from the Soviet Union.

Mr. Janner: My hon. Friend has simply stepped a little ahead of what I was about to say. I am a founder member of the International Commission for Human Rights in the Soviet Union. However, it is also very important to keep the two movements separate, because the Jewish movement wants to get people out of the Soviet Union and the Soviets have managed to deal with that without interfering with their internal system. The movement of the dissidents, the Baptists, and people like Sakharov and Moroz are trying to change the system within the Soviet Union. Many of us in this House are deeply concerned with both problems.
I am a Vice-President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, but I have been involved all my working life in the battle of freedom for others.

An Hon. Member: What about the Arabs?

Mr. Janner: The Arabs do not want to get killed or involved in wars. It is not to their advantage that they should get involved in another war.
We have to show the Soviet Union that each of us is involved in his own way. I hope my hon. Friend is actively concerned with some of the movements for the dissidents. I hope that he will take the opportunity of letting it be known to the Soviet trade unionists that that feeling exists, and I hope that he will arrange for others who are members of trade unions to bring their views to bear. I hope that he will accept from me that because personal friends of mine are under arrest in the Soviet Union it does not mean that I am not concerned for others for whom I have also worked.
The Russians refused to let me into the Soviet Union not merely because of my concern for Jews. It was because of my concern for others as well. One's unpopularity cannot be characterised in the Soviet Union according to one's religion, even if that religion happens to be treated there as a nationality.
One of the saddest features of the recent situation in the Soviet Union concerns a man called Professor Alexander Lunz. He said by telephone last week that when he was recently called into the KGB he was warned that it was preparing a trial against him on the ground of "treason to the Motherland", which could carry the death penalty. He was told "We do not care what you do because no one in the West cares about you people any more". I hope Mr. Shelepin's visit will provide an opportunity to show that idea to be a total mistake. We do care.
We care about our own people in our own constituencies. We care about people here and in the Middle East, about those whose religion we share and those whose religion we do not share. We care about those with whose political views we heartily disagree but for whose right to express them we would fight.
We want the Soviet Union to know that we care and that this is not merely an expression of view by those who are happy to find an opportunity to attack the Soviet Union, but that there are vast numbers of others who deplore the visit of Mr. Shelepin, people who are friends of the Soviet Union but are ashamed of the way that it treats its Jewish and its dissident minorities.
Our Government do not have the power to make peace in Cambodia or anywhere else. However, they can exercise a decent influence, a caring influence. We can show that the plight of others in other parts of the world matters to us, and if we do that we shall have helped to heal the sores of war and perhaps do more good than we were able to do in the world when we were a great colonial Power.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: One thing has been clear throughout the speeches this afternoon—that there is not much to inspire or encourage us throughout the world today. Virtually everywhere one looks there is a grave situation. As for the effect on us, particularly in view of our close ties with the United States, the reverses which that country has suffered in the Middle East, South-East Asia, Portugal, Turkey, Greece and Cyprus must inevitably raise the question of the extent to which it will in the future be willing to play an active part in international affairs.
President Ford said that there would be no return to "Fortress America", and the Secretary of State this afternoon emphasised that Dr. Kissinger, even at the moment of his disappointment, pointed out that this did not mean that the United States would stop trying. Nevertheless, it seems clear that Congress wants some reduction in America's world rôle, and it is equally a fact that we might be faced with an isolationist President in 1976. This is a fact that we cannot ignore. The gloom of the United States is compounded by the disunity in Europe. It is very ominous that the breakdown of peace negotiations in the Middle East should coincide with the opening of the first talks between the oil producers and the oil Consumers.
The possibility—one puts it no higher than that, but one must put it at that —that the United States will withdraw to some extent from international affairs highlights the yawning gap left—this fact has been referred to already by a number of hon. Gentlemen, and in particular the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker)—by the failure to develop a European foreign policy. The Community has taken some steps in this direction, but progress has been slow. It is of the greatest importance that it be accelerated, and I shall return briefly to that at the end of my remarks.
Obviously, in a speech of this kind, one cannot cover the field—much of what I was intending to say has already been touched upon by others—but I should like to make some brief points about six of the potential and real crisis areas in the world, starting, appropriately enough, following the speech which the hon. Gentleman has just made, with the Middle East.
I think it is right to echo the remarks that many hon. Members have already made, starting with the Foreign Secretary, in expressing grief at the assassination of King Faisal, in the realisation that a moderate Arab leader has left the scene. This is a matter of real regret.
The step-by-step approach that Dr. Kissinger attempted has failed. It is more than a little unfair to Dr. Kissinger to subject him to the kind of criticism to which he has been subjected recently, that his diplomacy was bound to fail


because it was too highly personalised, and so forth. We should recognise the immense debt the world owes to this man for his attempts to bring peace. Nevertheless he has failed, and the question is where next we go at Geneva, as has been said.
To avoid repetition, and in view of the time factor, I would make only one point on this whole issue. Despite the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Greville Janner), I agree with the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) that at the end of the day, if the Middle East crisis is to be resolved it must and can be resolved only by facing the reality—and the reality is that the PLO, however appalling some of the things it may have done, represents the Palestinians. is accepted by the Arab world as representing them and must, in consequence, be dealt with by the Israelis. That moment must come, and if we and the Government can do anything to accelerate it we shall be doing something useful and constructive.
Secondly, there is Indo-China. I find it very strange that at the very moment when very nearly 1 million people are fleeing out of the central highlands of Vietnam before the advancing North Vietnamese we have heard so little today about Vietnam. Frankly. I have been waiting to hear something—perhaps I shall, later—from the Labour Left about the continuing violations of the peace agreement by North Vietnam.

Mr. Newens: What about the South?

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Gentleman intervenes and asks "What about the South?" The fact of the matter is—and this is what I was talking about a moment ago in regard to Israel—that in Vietnam we are seeing aggressive war pursued by the North against the South. That is a fact. It is also a fact that. in total contravention of the agreement signed in January 1973, the North Vietnamese have been continually rearming and expanding their presence in the South. It is estimated according to the recent figures which I have available, that they have increased their strength from 100,000 to 300,000 in South Vietnam and. as has been mentioned by other hon. Members, they have also violated the

peace agreement by their use of Laos and Cambodia.
The reality is that the North Vietnamese are being armed by Soviet Russia. We know this as a fact. We know it is a fact that, even if they were not, the South Vietnamese are not attacking the North. That is not the reality of the case. Yet we see no demonstration from the Left at all. I supported and sympathised very much with much of the attitude of the Left in regard to the United States at the time of the bombing, and so forth, and I welcomed the withdrawal of the United States from Vietnam in the hope that this represented or would represent a stable solution to the problem, but I do not like selective morality.

Mr. Newens: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that in the South there are in fact two parties—the Thieu régime and the Provisional Revolutionary Government—and that in fact there have been abuses and breaches of the Paris agreements all round? If he wants not to be selective, surely he must refer to the breaches of the Thieu régime and, for example, to the continuing imprisonment in the most diabolical conditions, of tens of thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands, of political prisoners?

Mr. Johnston: I doubt if there are hundreds of thousands, with respect. But I am not here defending the nature of the Thieu régime. I would point out, nevertheless, that there are thousands of people streaming south from the central highlands—north to south, towards Saigon, towards the south, towards the kind of régime he has, and that is a fact.
The basic point I have made is in no way affected by what the hon. Gentleman has said, and that is that the North Vietnamese have breached flagrantly the agreements reached, and the Left have said nothing.
Thirdly, I would think that the Left—and I shall concentrate a little on the Left for a moment—has some responsibility in Portugal, because they have some contact in Portugal and I believe could exercise some valuable and constructive influence there. The Foreign Secretary has already said that there we are in danger of moving from one extreme situation to another extreme situation. We do not know—we hope not—but they


may turn the full circle, from dictatorship of the Right to dictatorship of the Left. I sincerely hope that the Left will exercise its influence to build on the fact that we in this country really would wish to see the development of a pluralist democracy in Portugal. I am sure they would wish it too, and I think that in the present situation their influence could be critical. The only other area of influence I can see is the possibility—perhaps the Minister, in concluding the debate, will indicate whether he believes this to be a reality or not—of its being helpful to moderates in Portugal for them to know that within the European Community there is a very strong support for Portuguese membership, but that clearly the existence of a pluralist democracy in Portugal would be a necessary precondition.
Fourthly, there is Cyprus, I shall say little about it, except, perhaps, to remark that I agreed with a fair amount of what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mrs. Jeger) said. She may be a bit pessimistic about the political future of Mr. Ecevit. I thought that some of the remarks he made at the weekend, at the meeting to which the Foreign Secretary referred, were extremely interesting. He pointed out that partition and annexation would be against Turkish interests in maintaining good relations with their allies, but that, on the other hand, the Turks were waiting for the Greeks to renounce Enosis. If we could bring pressure on the Greeks to make such a declaration, and if it had an equivalent response, it might lead to some concessions in line with Mr. Ecevit's statement. The Turks should be persuaded to spell out clearly what they mean by a bizonal solution and what sort of powers—particularly economic powers—they envisage remaining with the federal Government.
Fifthly, it has been the long-held and oft-repeated view of successive Governments that the British Government should not interfere with the internal affairs of other sovereign States. That view is out of date. It is riddled with exemptions and exceptions, in that we frequently comment on the internal affairs of Russia, South Africa, Uganda and other countries.
The Minister of State and I have corresponded, for example, about the Kurds.

It is imperative, following the agreement between Iran and Iraq, that the deadline of 1st April for the closure of the border should be extended. It is impossible for many of the Iraqis who live in the remote areas to get across the border to Iran before that deadline. If they do not, not only will there be widespread starvation and death; the Iraqis are not likely to be merciful—they have not shown mercy in the past.
I strongly urge the Foreign Secretary to act in accordance with the Government's stated principle of speaking out in defence of human rights and political freedoms and to intervene with the Shah of Iran and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to obtain an extension of the 1st April deadline. This is basically not a political but a humanitarian question. There are many other areas across the world about which we could talk. We could talk about Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and many other countries. We cannot draw a line when it comes to human misery.
One cannot dilate at length on the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and the relationship between Britain and the United States, but an important element in the conference is progress on human rights. I find the controversy about Mr. Shelepin very puzzling. It is almost as if Mr. Shelepin is a unique black sheep from the Soviet Union—as if he and he alone were unacceptable, as if he and he alone had done something wrong, as if he and he alone were the sort of person we would not be anxious to see and who would not improve British-Soviet relations. That is a lot of nonsense. The sooner we take a practical view of these matters the better.
I have no objection to the gentleman coming here. I do not like him or what he stands for, but I want to talk to him about it, otherwise I shall achieve nothing. When an hon. Member on the Opposition benches condemned the visit of Mr. Shelepin another hon. Member shouted "Caetano", suggesting that Conservatives could hardly criticise Mr. Shelepin's visit when they themselves invite Right-wing Fascist beasts. I did not object to the presence of Caetano as the head of a régime of which I did not approve. What I objected to was his being given an official glorious welcome as a long-standing ally. A businesslike visit with a view to


discussion between any two Heads of State is acceptable, whoever they may be. In the end, nothing but good can come of that. Certainly no bad can come of it.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to be innacurate. Caetano was Head of Government, but I am not merely making that narrow point. In this context Caetano cannot be compared with Mr. Shelepin. Mr. Shelepin is not Head of Government, and he is being invited here by a private body not in an official capacity but as a man with a singularly distasteful record.

Mr. Johnston: I agree that there is no direct comparison in that sense but, equally, in the other sense, it could be said that the Government are not responsible for Mr. Shelepin's visitation, whereas the Conservative Government were responsible for Caetano's visit.
The Foreign Secretary said that on this occasion we should lift our eyes above Europe. From a practical point of view, as we are to have a two-day debate on Europe after the recess, that is sense. What we must learn now and what will become increasingly characteristics of foreign affairs debates is that we shall see our future in the outside world through European spectacles, in terms of what we can achieve within the Community. From now on the priorities of British foreign policy will change. The old priorities will give way to a concentration on evolving common European views. Only in that way shall we be able to make an effective contribution, as we did at Lomé, to the development of relations with the underdeveloped countries, and only in that way shall we be able effectively to defend freedom and democracy throughout the Western world.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Colin Jackson: I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) will forgive me if I do not follow his six points from Inverness by nine points from Brighouse. I shall concentrate on one area of the world, the Middle East.
I begin by joining other hon. Members in their expressions of grief at the news of the assassination of King Faisal. To those of us who knew him he was an

impressive statesman, a deeply religious man and a person of great judgment. A spasm of fear must now move across the world as we wonder how that gap will be filled. Knowing as I do the new Crown Prince Fahd, the fear should not be too great. Prince Fahd is an immensely talented and very able person, and he will take over, in tragic circumstances, a stable regime in Saudi Arabia.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who is, alas, not here, commented on the remarks of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters), and I should like to comment on one or two of my hon. and learned Friend's thoughts. I have many pleasant recollections of debating with his father who has now gone to another place. He asked what guarantee Israel had that if she withdrew from territory there would not be war. The one thing that is absolutely certain is that unless she withdraws from the territories belonging to other nations that she has occupied there will be a fifth war. That is incontrovertible.
I was disappointed when my hon. Friend seemed to suggest that terrorism and Palestine were synonymous. I do not wish to go too far back in history. But I have personal memories of the terrorism that brought the birth of Israel. I remember the blowing up of the King David Hotel, the massacre of women and children at Deir-Yasin and the murder of Count Bernadotte—all regrettable and horrible incidents. We do not get anywhere by trading terrorist anecdotes.
I come to the failure of the Kissinger step-by-step mission. To my mind there was no doubt that it would fail. It is a great disappointment that the American leadership today does not remember some of the sayings of previous distinguished United States statesmen. For example, President Eisenhower, in an address to the nation on 20th February 1957 said:
Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose the conditions of its withdrawal? If we agree, then I fear we will have turned back the clock of international order.
Dr. Kissinger, in considering the present situation in the Middle East, could well remember the remarks of his predecessor. Secretary of State Rogers. In December


1969, when speaking about frontiers. he said:
We believe that while recognised political boundaries must be established, and agreed upon by the parties, any changes in the preexisting lines should not reflect the weight of conquest and should be confined to insubstantial alterations required for mutual security.
Those are basic points to be remembered in terms of territory in the context of the Arab-Israeli dispute. Mr. Rabin, the Israeli Prime Minister, has talked about trading a bit of peace for a bit of territory. As I have already said, there can be no peace unless the Israelis withdraw from all the territories that they have occupied in contravention of the United Nations resolution.
If President Sadat has gone as far as he is able to move towards recognising the secure existence of Israel, surely the Israelis would be well advised to make some concessions. For example, would it not be a gesture towards peace if the refugees who were driven abroad in the 1967 war were allowed to return? Would it not be a gesture for peace if United Nations elements were allowed into the occupied territories for the supervision of the rights of the Arab inhabitants? Would it not be a gesture towards peace if, for example, the illegal settlements in the Golan Heights or on the West Bank that have been established by the Israeli régime were wound up and if the Israelis were to move out of Palestine as well? Would it not be a gesture towards peace if the Israelis were to give some passing recognition of the United Nations unanimous condemnation of Israel's sole occupancy of Jerusalem.
It is a tragedy that King Faisal never lived to pray in Jerusalem. Had he done so there would have been a very much better chance of peace. Mr. Rabin is talking about trading territory for peace, but in the Middle East dispute peace must come from both sides. As reflected in the remarks of the hon. Member for Inverness, the Palestinians must be in on this peace.
One of the most remarkable things has been the rebirth of Palestine in the past few years. We talked over the years about the refugees as merely flotsam and jetsam. They were the people who were dispersed. I echo the remarks that have been made about Kurdistan. We lose people in

this century. We have lost the Armenians, and we are in danger of losing the Kurds. However, the Palestinians have resurrected themselves.
Wherever I go whilst lecturing in the United States—I am going there next week—I am quite confident that American opinion will acknowledge that there will be no peace in the Middle East until there is a place for Palestine on the map. A few years ago there would have been complete lack of interest in that proposition but now there will be acknowledgment.
The hon. Member for Westbury dealt with how the Palestinians should come into the talks. The extent of Palestine's representation is difficult. The State of Palestine, as envisaged in the moderate remarks of, for instance, the PLO spokesman, Mr. Saad Hammani, involves the West Bank. But one day Palestine will cross the River Jordan to the East. With all respect to the Hashemite dynasty, it is an anachronism in the area. In time it will be to Israel's advantage for Palestine to grow. A crowded and hungry Palestine could be a danger to Israel. An extended Palestine will undoubtedly be a safer neighbour. If we are to go on towards a cantonal system, equality in numbers between Palestine and Israel is just as much to the advantage of the Israelis as to the Palestinians.
We must proceed rapidly to a Geneva conference. We must have active European representation at Geneva. It is an astonishing feature that the Middle East has been ruined by the entry, in different ways, of American interests and Russian interests. America is far too committed to Israel because of domestic political conditions. The Soviet Union, ever power-hungry, is anxious to exploit the discontent and the unhappiness of the Arabs. All of us who know the Arab world and Israel will know that the basic sentiments of the area are towards the nations of Europe. History and culture have set us together. We are also linked in terms of energy. Organisations have sprung up, like Eurabia, that brings together the countries and representatives of Europe and the Arab world. We also have parliamentary associations linking Europe and the Arab world. I am convinced that a European rôle in Geneva is vital. We cannot limit it to the step-by-step activities of an American Secretary of State.


The Russians are interested only in their own ambitions. We need to lay out a general scheme based on Resolution 242. We must start again not on a step-by-step approach but on a wider basis. There should be a continuing conference with permanent representatives and not only Foreign Secretaries. There should also be talks between the Israelis and the Arabs.
It is no good Israel demanding absolute security and resting there. As Dr. Kissinger has said, absolute security for one nation means absolute insecurity for its neighbours. The best answer lies in secure and recognised frontiers based on the 1967 situation. There must be recognition by Israel of the right of the Palestinians to speak, just as the people of Jewish faith must also be able to speak. Reference was made by the hon. Member for Westbury to an enlarged and enhanced United Nations force. This is vital, but we shall get no real peace in the Middle East this century, if at all. The best thing we can do is to move towards Geneva and so prevent a fifth war.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. lain Sproat: We are holding this debate in the middle of what, by wide consent, must be, for this country and for its allies, one of the most sombre and depressing periods of foreign policy that we have known for many years. In the past few weeks alone we have been witnessing the erosion of western influence and the crumbling of policies that we support. Loss of control over events is taking place in a terrifyingly wide spread of countries.
In Portugal we are seeing changes so rapid, so far-reaching and so potentially undermining to Western security that we cannot yet assess the extent of the damage and the dangers. However, we know that they will, alas, be very great. The situation in Portugal is not yet completely lost, but who in this House would say with any conviction that in a year's time we shall not have another Communist dictatorship?
In the Middle East, as many hon. Members have mentioned, we have seen the collapse of Dr. Kissinger's present efforts and the triumph of the Soviet desire to frustrate them.
In Cambodia, Government and people are learning that they cannot rely on

American promises to protect them against Communist aggression, while at the same time Communists and their allies are learning that they can rely on the Soviet Union to continue to support them.
In South Vietnam—a tragedy which has received all too little debate this afternoon—a Government which trusted the United States to protect them against the Soviet-supported North Vietnamese are learning, tragically, that that trust was totally misplaced. At the time of the Paris Agreement on Vietnam, Dr. Kissinger gave absolute commitments that the future of Vietnam would not be decided by force. Where are those commitments now? In effect, the Americans have deserted their allies in Indo-China; the Soviet Union has stuck by its allies.
Who now can believe, utterly and completely, in any American commitment, whether it be in Indo-China or—although the domestic circumstances are quite different—in the Middle East, or even in Western Europe? Nor is it the Americans alone who are in this position. The Soviet Union has given an estimated £1,000 million in military aid to the Iraqi Government, and most of that money has gone to crush the Kurds. The Kurds looked to the West and placed their trust in western-oriented Iran. Again, that trust has been tragically and brutally misplaced. Iran has withdrawn its support, and the Kurds face genocide. Once again the Soviet Union has shown that it sticks by its allies, and once again alliance with the Soviet Union has been shown to pay off.
The fact that Iran had other reasons for signing its agreement with Iraq, which may contribute to stability in the Middle East, the fact that Iraq is showing signs of wanting to get out from under the Soviet Union—and I hope that the United Kingdom will help Iraq to do so—will not blind uncommitted or threatened nations to the fact that in these last weeks alone, in Portugal, Cambodia, Vietnam, and the Middle East, the western nations and their allies have lacked the will, the energy and the determination, to stand by those they promised to stand by.
At the same time as the causes supported by the Soviet Union are advancing, the United Kingdom, at a moment of financial crisis, is preparing, in effect, to


lend money to the Soviet Union at a rate lower than that at which we are compelled to borrow to keep ourselves afloat. In the latest defence White Paper we are cutting our ability to defend ourselves, without any corresponding action by the Soviet Union. Furthermore, because the present Government are proposing a referendum on the EEC, we are a considerable way to backing out of the one major hope for ensuring the United Kingdom's security and influence in the future —namely, the EEC and, with it, the nucleus of a united Europe.
British influence has diminished and, alas, is still diminishing, but I wish to mention three specific areas in which we still can and must exercise some urgent influence.
I refer first to Iraqi Kurdistan. It now appears tragically pointless to argue the rights and wrongs of the breaches of the March 1970 agreement between the Kurds and the Iraqis, but, with General Barzani's 1½ million followers fearing genocide, with 300,000 Kurdish refugees, threatened by disease and starvation, trying to make their way to the safety of Iran by 1st April, I ask Her Majesty's Government to take action first, to intercede urgently with the Shah so that the border may be kept open for another month for the passage of refugees. If this does not happen, in the terrible conditions of travel in northern Iraq at this time of year many thousands of men, women and children will have no chance to reach the safety of Iran before the Iraqi cease-fire is over.
Secondly, I ask Her Majesty's Government to intercede with the Turks to open their frontier to humanitarian aid to Kurdish refugees. Thirdly, I ask the Government to use every possible means to persuade the international community, particularly the United Nations, to organise urgently a massive relief operation for the Kurds in their desperate plight.
In areas where we can still exercise some influence, and indeed must do so, I wish to mention the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. Like almost every other hon. Member, I am in favour of true détente between the Soviet. Union and the West. I want to see the areas of friction between us reduced. I also want to see an increase

in trade and human contacts, a freer flow of information and greater confidence and co-operation between us, but I draw a distinction between true détente, substantiated by action, and a mere barrage of verbiage about détente, without much action to substantiate it.
To those who might become lulled by the euphoria of all the talk about détente, it cannot be emphasised enough that détente is no substitute for defence. I was surprised to hear the Foreign Secretary tell the House this afternoon that he had managed to persuade the Russians to change their definition of "peaceful coexistence". Does that mean that the Russians would not now march into Czechoslovakia? Would a new definition of "co-existence" completely change all that? I do not suppose that there is one hon. Member in the House who believes that. It does not matter about any scrap of paper relating to the Soviet Union's definition of co-existence. We know their aims and we know what they are out to achieve.
I say with some sadness that little has happened to persuade me otherwise than that at the CSCE the dominant aim of the Soviet Union—and that aim is different from the aims of other members of the Warsaw Pact, such as Romania, Hungary and Czechoslovakia—is to alter the balance of power in Europe in its own favour, pursued merely by means different from those of the past. The aim is to divide and weaken Western Europe, to strengthen the Soviet hold over Eastern Europe, and to reduce the risks for the Soviet Union in Europe as a whole. That is what faces the Russians in the light of their economic problems, their fissiparous ethnic problems, and the problem of China threatening their Eastern frontier.
Mr. Brezhnev wants a CSCE summit this summer. I do not subscribe to the view that just because he may be the best First Secretary we have got, we should therefore do all he wants. I hope that a summit proves possible this summer, but there must be no further erosion of the West's position at the CSCE. In particular, we still require better and firmer guarantees about military confidence-building measures, to which the Foreign Secretary referred, and a freer flow of people and ideas. I hope that the Government will say to the Soviet authority that without such guarantees


there will be no summit conference this summer. It is better that there be no summit than a phoney one.
Finally, in the areas where we still can and must exercise some influence, I wish to mention the EEC. I said earlier that British influence in the world was, alas, continuing to diminish. That sorry process can be stopped. I believe that it can be stopped through, and only through, a united Europe, of which the EEC is the only credible present representative. After Easter we shall no doubt be having long debates on this subject. I shall therefore say now only that I believe that there is nothing in foreign policy more important than for Her Majesty's Government to help construct a strong, democratic and united Europe.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Newens: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) expressed dismay at the trend of world events. Since before the end of the Second World War we have been witnessing an inexorable struggle on the part of the peoples of the Third World—Africa, Southern Asia and Latin America —to cast off the yoke of the advanced countries and of imperialism. The record demonstrates that the tide of history has been with that movement. That is why the hon. Gentleman is bound to be disappointed with the way that affairs have turned out in recent years.
Many people outside this House, as well as right hon. and hon. Members, have sought to interpret the process as some diabolical Soviet plot, but, once independent, surprisingly few countries have been ready to act as puppets of Moscow.
I was among those Members of Parliament who denounced the United States' intervention in Indo-China, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia all the way through. I believe that those who took that position were proved absolutely right by what has been happening this week. All the military might of the United States, all the threats to bomb Vietnam back into the Stone Age, the tragic deaths and suffering of the Vietnamese and the loss of over 40,000 American lives, have not sufficed to stem the course of history.
The days of the United States domination of Vietnam are drawing to a close,

whether or not the Americans give aid. It will be a step forward when at last Vietnam has achieved its genuine united national independence. [An HON. MEMBER: "Free elections?"] We did not have free elections in many other parts of the world about which hon. Members have been concerned today. Unfortunately, the experience of Vietnam does not yet seem to have taught right hon. and hon. Members the lesson of history.
The Labour Party manifesto declared opposition to all forms of colonialism. Unfortunately, even with a Labour Government in office, we are not putting that into practice in other parts of the world.
I want to turn my attention particularly to the situation in the Gulf and the Indian Ocean.

Mr. Bowden: I find the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Vietnam incredible. Is he saying that, as there is supposed to be peace at the moment between North and South Vietnam, North Vietnam is not an aggressor in South Vietnam and that Communist-backed and sponsored forces are not attempting to take over the whole of South Vietnam? Surely the hon. Gentleman must accept that.

Mr. Newens: I suggest that Vietnam is one country and that the North Vietnamese and the forces of the National Liberation Front are no more aggressors in Vietnam than the Northern States of the United States were aggressors in the Southern States during the American Civil War. I do not wish to pursue that matter now, but I do not regard it as aggression. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will be patient, because they will have plenty more to object to in what is coming.
The Middle East as a whole, and not South-East Asia, is the most potentially explosive area of the globe today, yet all the major advanced countries, including the Soviet Union, are pouring in arms at an unprecedented rate. Whatever the arguments may be about the Arab-Israeli struggle—I do not believe that peace will come about without recognising the legitimate rights of all peoples, including the Palestinians and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation which represents them —there can surely be no shred of justification for the militarisation of the Gulf and the Indian Ocean that is now taking place.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: By whom?

Mr. Newens: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will wait, I shall explain. Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jnr, Chief of the United States naval operations, made the following interesting remark some time ago:
The Indians primarily, but other nations in the area, too, have talked about a zone of peace in the area. We think this is a very dangerous concept.
It is true that the Western Powers have powerful interests in the Indian Ocean—shipping lanes, oil resources, the minerals of Southern Africa and strategic considerations—but in the long run these will not be safeguarded by throwing in our lot with the most reactionary antidemocratic elements in the area and building up the military strength of those powers.
The question of the Soviet presence—I make it clear that I do not support it—is not the real threat in the eyes of the United States and of many other people. Soviet arms supplies in the Gulf are approximately one-fifth in value of the United States arms supplies. Soviet naval facilities are much weaker, and her air facilities are virtually non-existent. For example, the United States Phantoms which were supplied to Saudi Arabia have a range of 1,000 miles, compared with 400-miles range of the MIG 21s which went to South Yemen and Iraq. We should bear that point clearly in mind.
The real threat that is recognised by the Western Powers is the continuing insurrection in Oman and the possibility of revolution engulfing the whole area. It is in this context that British efforts to crush the Dhofar rebellion, the intention to do which is reported in the defence review, should be considered. It is all very well to say, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have said on numerous occasions in reply to Questions that I have put down, that the present sultan is more progressive than his father. But the British supported his father and his predecessors for many years.
The present sultan does not believe in democracy, and is an autocrat at best. I cannot understand the logic of right hon. and hon. Members who get hot under the collar about what is going on in Portugal when they are prepared to

accept a complete absence of democracy in the States surrounding the Gulf. Britain has built up the armed forces of the Sultan of Oman. We have provided officers to direct his campaigns and acquiesced in the presence of thousands of Iranian troops who have been brought into the struggle. Last year, British pilots flew planes over Western Dhofar, destroying waterholes, killing livestock and attacking villages. I do not know what that has to do with being on the side of the poor and oppressed of the world.
At this moment, British officers are directing a campaign to wipe out the base of the insurrection in Western Dhofar, which we have no justification for doing. The military campaign may in the short term succeed, but it will not remove the cause of the insurrection, which is a demand for a radical change by an awakening people.
Already, the cost of the war to the sultan is absorbing a vast proportion of the national revenue of Oman and producing cash problems. Yet the sultan is hopelessly extravagant and is spending enormous amounts of money on the building of palaces. Recently, when he came to London the Evening Standard reported that he paid a visit to Harrods to buy £18,000 worth of perfume to put in his bath. Is that an example of the kind of person we should be supporting if we are so interested in democracy?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds) rose—

Mr. Newens: In my view, most of the Gulf States are not much better.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I intervene for one purpose. It is possible that Sultan Qaboos, if he is advised, will read the Official Report. It is right for me to record that what the hon. Gentleman says carries no credence with the Opposition.

Mr. Newens: I am sure that Sultan Qaboos will be no more surprised about that than I am.
Much as I regret the assassination today of King Faisal—as I regret any assassination or such an act of violence —and despite the economic progress achieved there, Saudi Arabia is an utter autocracy, where prisoners' hands and limbs are struck off as punishments. It is all very well for the Opposition not


to accept that state of affairs, but that is the situation.
In Yemen, Bahrein and Iran many political prisoners are kept in horrifying conditions. There is a denial of human rights in many of those States. I do not approve of terrorism, but we should recognise that such inhuman régimes as this breed it.
I have always been ready to denounce inhumane conditions, whether in the Soviet Union, the Middle East or any other part of the world. We cannot run away from that.
As Britain has pulled back from this area, the United States interest has increased. The CIA, to which I referred recently in another context, has played an increasingly important rôle in this matter. The headquarters of the CIA was shifted from Cyprus to Iran in 1973. The ex-CIA director, Richard Helms, was appointed more recently as United States ambassador to Iran, where no doubt he will have a close relationship with the Savak, which is part of the machinery for suppressing the legitimate rights of the Iranian people.
It was reported some time ago in the Economist that Sultan Qaboos met CIA representatives in London in 1971. Subsequently military aid was channelled from the United States to Aman via Saudi Arabia. Sultan Qaboos visited Washington in January of this year, where President Ford and Dr. Kissinger apparently discussed with him the possibility of having access to facilities at Masirah in return for the anti-tank missiles with which they agreed to provide him.
The United States has a policy of seeking to oppose social revolution by proxy if possible, but to maintain the greatest possible strategic mobility to move forces into the area if required. Unfortunately, the British Government co-operated with the United States in that respect by providing additional facilities at Diego Garcia. I believe that the militarisation of the Indian Ocean is against the interest of those living around it and that Britain's acquiescence and participation in this policy is morally unjustified and politically bankrupt. As in Vietnam, the tide of demand for a new social order

will not be turned back by these activities. It will only be delayed.
British policy should be opposed to colonialism and militarisation. It should not favour the building up of reactionary Governments such as those of Iran and Saudi Arabia. British policy should be independent of the present United States policy in this area. I refer to the policy of Dr. Kissinger and of those with whom he is associated.
I welcome the attempts now being made by Congress to voice a different form of United States policy, which I believe is far more progressive than anything for which Dr. Kissinger stands. Britain should make it clear that it will in no wise support the threats which he has made to seize the oil installations. We should oppose the provision of additional facilities for the United States at Diego Garcia, Masirah, or anywhere else. It is fashionable today to regard Dr. Kissinger as a fount of wisdom on foreign affairs, and as an outstanding man of peace. However, I remember his association with the policy of destabilisation by the CIA in Chile which led to the tragic overthrow of Dr. Allende. I am concerned about democracy there as much as in other places.
I remember Dr. Kissinger's record in Indo-China, and the advice which he tendered on Cyprus. On this issue I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger). I believe that it is high time that Parliament made clear that some hon. Members, at least, do not agree with some of Dr. Kissinger's policies. Probably our views are much closer to those increasingly expressed by representatives in the United States Congress. The United States military build-up in the Indian Ocean will not ensure the continued flow of oil, because the real threat to that oil is not from a Soviet naval embargo. The threat arises from the possibility that the oil will be cut off at its sources. Therefore, we should avoid tying British policy to that of the United States.
We should oppose colonialism, neocolonialism and imperialism, which American policy represents in that part of the world. This means an end to British support for the Sultan of Oman in the war against Dhofar. It means


opposition to all militarisation of the Indian Ocean, whether by the Soviet Union or by the United States. It would be very good if Britain took a lead in that respect.
I make no apology for proclaiming my belief in a new social system to end the exploitation of man by man. Experience of history indicates the path we should follow to achieve that aim. It is not a path which has been followed by Labour and Conservative Governments in their support of imperialist interests, multinational companies and narrow, reactionary groups of people in exploiting the poor and underprivileged masses. It may take years, but eventually the people in the Gulf and the Middle East will achieve a unity and a freer and more progressive society.
We in Britain must recognise that we shall best be served by refraining from committing ourselves to the outgoing reactionary forces in all parts of the world. We must be prepared to establish a relationship with the new forces.
The Labour Party manifesto, on which I fought the last election, said that we opposed racialism and colonialism. The policies of which I have spoken genuinely represent the putting into practice of that manifesto.
Many hon. Members will not have agreed with much that I have said this evening. However, I think that they should recognise that, despite the smiles in which some of them have indulged, there is an increasing body of opinion outside Parliament which opposes imperialism. Eventually the future of humanity lies with us on this side of the House—not with the Opposition.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The winding up speeches are due to begin at nine o'clock. Therefore, on behalf of the 14 still anxious to take part who have been here almost throughout the whole of this lengthy debate, I appeal again to hon. Members to be reasonably brief.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Jim Spicer: The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) said that we cannot stem the course of history. History as he has rewritten it tonight we will certainly stem, because it bears no relationship to reality. We on

this side reject every word that he said, particularly about South Vietnam and the horrors being inflicted on innocent people who are fleeing from Hue and other cities because they know what would happen to them at the hands of the North Vietnamese if they were left behind.
This whole debate has been pitched in a sombre key, and that is right. The last year has seen a chapter of disasters for the whole of Western democracy and, above all, for NATO. Over the last 25 years we have relied far too much on the major rôle that the United States has always played in foreign affairs and defence. We and the rest of the partners, or so-called partners, in the alliance have all too easily adopted a minor rôle and gone along with the United States, allowing it to take the lead.
Now, however, the United States is no longer prepared to accept that rôle or to take that lead. It now falls to us, as the erstwhile junior partner in the alliance, to assert ourselves as full partners and to play a much fuller Dart. This means that we all have to face reality. There are three areas in which that is vital now.
The first is Portugal. The very brief period when it seemed that the Portuguese would exist under a democratic Government has been short-lived. We now see exactly what fate stands in store for the people of Portugal. Many hon. Members on this side were present in Oporto just a few weeks ago at the demonstrations against a democratic party trying to hold its congress. It was clear to us all what was happening, when 500 escudos would change hands, an iron bar would be handed out and a man would go off to do his stint of demonstrating against a democratic party. That is the fate which lies in store for Portugal.
We must face the reality of what that will mean after the elections in Portugal. Does it mean that we can rely on Portugal as a NATO partner? Of course not. It will be impossible for Portugal, in the hands of a small clique of Communists, to play a part in NATO, and she would not wish to do so. So the responsibility now rests with us to face reality. If we lose our base in Portugal, where do we then go? At the moment the United States has bases unilaterally in Spain. Can we use those bases which have been


negotiated unilaterally with Spain for NATO forces? That is the reality that the Government may have to face in the months ahead. It is vital that we have bases on the Iberian peninsula.
The second area in which we must face reality is Cyprus. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) is no longer present. I should have taken issue with her interpretation of events in Cyprus. I, fortunately and unfortunately, spent many years in Cyprus. I love Cyprus and the Cypriot people, both Greek and Turkish, but from the very moment that the independence of Cyprus was given against the background of the continuance of Eoka under a new name, it was inevitable that. sooner or later, an invasion by Turkish forces would take place.
From the day of that independence until 1963, the culmination of the first period, inch by inch the Turkish Cypriot population were pushed back, terrorised by the group led by Nicos Sampson. In 1963, in part because of the pressure put on by the United States but also because of the forbearance of the Turkish armed forces and the Turkish Government, Turkey did not invade. But in 1974, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South said, she wished we had intervened. So in part do I, but at that point, with Sampson put in power by a military Government in Greece with the express intention of forcing the Turkish Cypriots into an even smaller area and destroying their villages, the Turks had no alternative. That invasion had to take place.
That is where we must now face the reality of the situation. What we now have to do is decide whether we will accept what is bound to be the case—that the old days have gone, that the days when one could drive from Nicosia to Kyrenia with Greek village succeeding Turkish village succeeding Greek village, have gone. They went before the invasion, and we now have to accept that there is a de facto partition of Cyprus into two parts. We have a special responsibility to see that this is made to work in the interests of all the Cypriot people, as far as we can.
In doing so, I would stress one small point against the broader canvas, but

one which is important to people in this country—those British residents many of whom have lived in Cyprus for many years, who have settled there and sunk their savings into houses there and who are now deprived of their homes and are under great pressure financially and otherwise. I know that the Government have made strong representations about this to the Turkish Government, but I hope that they will continue those representations and make it a point of honour that just restitution is made to this small group who have suffered so much.
The position in Cyprus leads on to another danger area. It has led directly to the ban on arms sales to Turkey. Here we are on very dangerous ground. Some might delight in the break-up of the NATO forces on the southern flank, but I am not one of them. When an ally has been loyal and faithful to us for 30 years, for her to be deprived of her main sources of supply at a crucial point in the middle of re-equipping her armed forces is a situation fraught with danger. It is one of which we should take note since it could ultimately disturb the whole balance of the NATO alliance. It is not a small group but public opinion in Turkey—a proud people—who are now saying that they will not tolerate the imposition of this ban by the United States. It is a misuse of the power of the United States which they will live to regret in the months and years to come.
In all these areas and many others, the one certainty is that the other arm of NATO, of the democratic Powers—the European end—must begin to act in concert, not only as an economic entity but as a political entity. We need that political will from our side to match that of the Americans, or perhaps the flagging interest of the Americans, on the other side. It is vital that not only in Portugal and Turkey but also in the desperate problems which we now face and the threat to world peace in the Middle East we should turn our thoughts from the economic strength of the EEC towards the real political will that we alone can bring to that area which is so vital to us.
This may not be a good time for us to give a lead, but a lead there must be if future generations are not to judge us as harshly as we now judge those who;


through ignorance, idleness or cowardice, laid the unhappy foundations for the war against Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy. The enemy today is as plainly visible as he was then. We must be resolved to work together and, when necessary, to take unpopular decisions if we are not to follow the same path to possible destruction of our democratic way of life.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Evan Luard: During the past two months we have had a number of minor debates on the Common Market and after Easter we shall have a major two-day debate on that subject. I know that a number of hon. Members have felt that for that reason it is not appropriate for us to speak about that subject today. I respect that feeling. There are a number of subjects not concerned with Europe to which I would wish to devote some attention. But at a time when this country is on the brink of making perhaps the most important external decision it has ever taken, that is, in the referendum, it would be an act of irrelevance not to devote at least a considerable part of our attention to this subject.
It is inevitable that at the conclusion of a long hard year's negotiations on the question of our membership of the EEC, the judgments that have been widely made about the success of those negotiations have been largely subjective. Those people who have for many years been opposed to British membership of the EEC have, almost without exception, tended to conclude that the negotiations did not succeed in meeting the conditions laid down in the Labour Party manifesto. Those people—and I confess that I am one—who have been convinced for many years that Britain should be a member of the EEC have, on the contrary, tended to persuade themselves that the Government's negotiations succeeded, if not totally, at least substantially, in meeting those conditions laid down in the Labour Party manifesto that it was reasonable to expect should be met.
I stress that it is important to judge the negotiations in the context of realistic expectations: certain changes in the whole Community system could not reasonably have been made. Judged in that light, the Government have achieved

a greater degree of success than I believed possible a year ago. This is partially due to the skill with which the negotiations were conducted. I pay tribute especially to the success of my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in winning the good will and confidence of our Community partners so that they were willing to make significant movements towards our point of view. It is partly that certain changes have taken place within the Community which have made it more the type of organisation that most of us would wish to join.
I could go through, one by one, the seven conditions laid down in the Labour Party manifesto. That operation has been undertaken a number of times in the House in recent months, and I may wish to do it on a future occasion. I do not wish to attempt to do it now. I wish to address myself to three major matters which are perhaps the most important subjects of concern about our membership of the EEC. They are all subjects which were discussed at length during the negotiations.
The first is the common agricultural policy. Of all the features of the Community system, this is the one that to many of us—whether we are in favour of British membership of the Common Market or against it—is the most disagreeable. There is no doubt that the Community's agricultural system is just about the most protective type it is possible to devise. It penalises imports, rewards self-sufficiency and even subsidises exports, in certain circumstances. We are right to be opposed in general to that type of agricultural system. But its abandonment was not a reasonable thing for anyone to think could be brought about during the negotiations.
The introduction of that system was the carrot which induced France to join the EEC. It was the prize which it gained in return for paying the price of accepting industrial free trade. Therefore, as the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) discovered 15 or 16 years ago, there was no possible opportunity for this country to get the benefit of free trade in industrial products without accepting the undoubted difficulties of the obligations inherent in the common agricultural policy.
However, there have been some important changes even in this area. The system is nothing like it was originally. This is partly because of the increasing restiveness and reluctance of the West Germans to continue to foot the bill for the policy, but it is partly the result of the recent negotiations. The policy today is adjusted far more towards the convenience and interests of the consumer, and less towards paying the producer.
In one other case we have been able to introduce something like a deficiency payment system, a system of premiums, for our beef producers. We have secured the benefit of cheap imports of sugar compared with the existing world price, and of imports of grain at prices certainly favourable compared with the existing world price. As a result of the review of the common agricultural policy which has taken place, the Community has increasingly committed itself to accepting national aids for agriculture in general, to avoiding the accumulation of large stockpiles of food, and, in disposing of those stockpiles, to taking account of the interests of the consumer in the Community rather than the consumer outside the Community.
The second matter that I wish to deal with is the criticism that was often understandably made of the Community in the past—that it was an inward-turned organisation. That was not an entirely justifiable criticism, even from the beginning. Take, for example, expediture on aid. I believe that for some years almost every other member of the Community, apart from Italy, has been paying a higher proportion of its GNP in aid than we have. None the less, it is true that some of these countries have not had our long colonial experience, and their attention has therefore not been focused on the outside world as ours has been, so people have been understandably concerned that if we became a member we would find ourselves increasingly turning our attention exclusively towards the Common Market.
I believe that there have been developments in the Community over the last two or three years which should have done something to belie that fear. The most striking manifestation of this is the recent Lomé Convention and the agree-

ment made for the benefit of the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. That agreement was considerably more generous than any agreement this country has ever made for the benefit of its colonies, the Commonwealth or developing countries in general.
That agreement was in many ways a model of what such agreements should be. It provided for some degree of non-reciprocity, of definite discrimination in favour of developing countries, in that they were granted preferences which were not granted to the richer countries in return; because it covered agricultural products as well as industrial products; and provided for a system of stabilisation of the earnings from commodities from the developing countries. That should reassure people in this country that the Community is no longer an inward-turned organisation. It has also had the effect that many of the developing countries, including the Commonwealth countries, now realise that it is much in their interests that we should remain within the Community, because they have much more to gain from the agreement that they have now reached than they could gain from any return to, for example preferences exclusively with Britain.
The third matter to which I turn is the much-discussed topic of sovereignty. I am glad to say that the word "sovereignty" did not appear in our manifesto, as it clearly has nationalist overtones. The manifesto said that the negotiations aimed to preserve for Parliament the powers to pursue effective regional, industrial and fiscal policies, In each of those areas we have preserved our independence and our rights.
We have ensured that we can continue to pursue those regional policies that we have been pursuing, including, for example, our regional employment premiums. In addition, we shall gain the benefit of the Community's own regional policy payments. The only obligation that we have is generally to conform to guidelines concerning the type of regional policy to be pursued. That is as much in our interests as in the interests of other members of the Community, as they will protect us from excessive subsidisation of particular areas. As the other members of the Community are richer than we are, we have more to lose than to gain from subsidisation of that kind.
Similarly, in industrial policy we have preserved our right to undertake, for example, policies concerning the extension of public ownership, policies designed to establish planning agreements, policies to set up a National Enterprise Board. Nothing in that area will be affected by our membership. Again, the only obligation concerns pricing—to prevent policies which interfere with free and fair competition and which involve an element of subsidy in pricing. That is in our own interests.
Fiscal policy was never in any way endangered by membership. Therefore, in all three areas we have retained our general freedom of manoeuvre. We have achieved the aims that we set out to achieve.
I do not believe that any of the other matters that were discussed—the other four points in the manifesto—are of great importance. They are our contribution to the EEC budget, harmonisation of VAT, freedom of capital movement and the theoretical monetary union which was envisaged at one time. Moreover, in all those matters we have achieved our aims almost in full. Here, too, we can feel that the negotiations have been successful to a considerable extent.
The House will not be surprised that after my survey of the negotiations I very much welcome the Government's decision to recommend the renegotiated terms to the electorate in the forthcoming referendum. I do so because I am convinced that a decision to remain within the Community would not merely be in the best interests of this country but would be in conformity with the traditions, policies and ideals of the Labour Party.
Above all things, our party has surely been an internationalist party. It is true that when we have spoken of internationalism we have often been concerned, above all, with the building up of world institutions—that is an aim which I hold extremely dear—but we also regard as an important interim aim the object of establishing effective regional institutions, such as the EEC.
Whether we like it or not, this country is a part of Western Europe. Our future, our destiny, lies in Western Europe. If we wish to retain our influence on that future destiny, it can be only by remain-

ing a member of the great and growing Community on our own doorstep.
Once the decision has been taken to remain within the Community, I believe that, just as we helped to establish democratic Socialism in this country over the past decades, we have an important role to play in helping to build up democratic Socialism in Western Europe over the coming decades.

8.25 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I do not think I am called upon to comment on the speech by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard), or perhaps I should describe it as a lecture which think was not directed to the Opposition but was intended for consumption by his own party.
Instead, I revert to the theme of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, in what I found a rather agreeable speech. There is only one point of substantial difference between us. He said that the reason why some Conservative Members did not appreciate the Russian trade treaty was that they were against the Soviet Union. If we cast grave doubts on the validity of that agreement, it is not because of political undertones or overtones but because we think that on good commercial grounds, and because of the effect on the balance of payments, it is a thoroughly bad agreement. I look forward to an opportunity to debate the matter more fully on another occasion.
In every foreign affairs debate in recent years one word and one phrase have come up with monotonous regularity. The word is "détente" and the phrase is "double standards", a phrase which is mainly heard from my side of the House and which I wish to talk about. There is much that I would wish to say about it, if there were time, but one of my thoughts about some people's approach to the word is that it is rather like the old nursery song "Wishing will make it so", in that some people seem to think that if we keep on saying "Détente, détente", and say what a marvellous thing it is, it will have arrived.
This Government enjoy issuing White Papers and Green Papers with various coloured edges. I should like them one day to issue a paper giving an exact summary of where détente, as a reality, not a hope or illusion, has taken place.


Where has the Soviet Union given away any aim or advantage that it has been seeking? Where in the whole world has it ceased its aggressions? Where has it reduced its imperialistic control of satellite States? Where has it given more freedom to its own peoples? Where has it given more freedom to those whom it controls, directly or indirectly?
I believe that it would be the shortest White Paper ever issued, because I do not believe that, except as a pious aspiration, there is any practical evidence of the Russians having done anything more in the realm of reaching détente than to continue with their aims. If relations have been easier during the last few years as a result of this so-called policy it is because we have been increasingly giving way because we do not want to upset the so-called détente. In other words, whatever relaxation has been achieved has been because the West has been allowing its essential interests to decline, and the protection of those interests.
I turn briefly to the events in South-East Asia. I have been shocked at one or two speeches from hon. Members on the Government side of the House—not the Foreign Secretary—suggesting that in some way all that is happening now in Vietnam is that the people are at long last getting together now that the American yoke has been removed. I wonder whether those hon. Members who have spoken in that vein would take their eyes away from the columns of the Morning Star for a few minutes every day and look at some of the pictures of some of the hundreds of thousands of refugees who are fleeing from the advance of the forces in the North in order to seek sanctuary in what remains of the South. I should have thought that these pictures of people voting with their feet and their lives would convince all but the most biased. Yet we have heard speeches about the horrors of the brutal, dictatorial, tyrannous régime in Saigon. If it is so brutal, dictatorial and tyrannous, why are those hundreds of thousands of people going south instead of north? No hon. Member on the Government side of the House has yet told me why that is taking place.

Mr. Flannery: I shall try.

Sir F. Bennett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will reply in his own speech. For the sake of brevity I shall not give way to either seated or standing observations.
Regarding the tragic events in South-East Asia, it is now unfashionable to recall Foster Dulles and the dominoes. Yet what is happening there today, and with wider implications, is the discredited dominoes factor coming true. Already we have seen that if Cambodia goes to Communist control, Laos will do so. Vietnam is likely to do so. Already the Philippines and Thailand are beginning to look to their security and decide whether they can afford to stand up for their own freedom and independence against the forces from the north.
If there was one cause above all others why the Kissinger mission in Israel and the Arab States failed, it was because the Israelis are now more obdurate about giving up what they regard as their essential strategic interests because they have seen what happens to allies of the United States elsewhere and are no longer prepared to leave their basic national security to a guarantee by a single foreign Power. This is what it is all about. That is why Kissinger has failed. The Israelis can look at a map in the same way as everyone else. They can say "The guarantee of the United States today does not have the same value, and the events in South-East Asia are proving this. Therefore, we shall have to look to ourselves and our own efforts to defend ourselves."
That is one of the more tragic implications and consequences of what is happening in South-East Asia today.
I said that I would comment on "double standards". There was one other point on which the Foreign Secretary did himself and us less than justice. That was in his arguments about the Shelepin case. But the right hon. Gentleman first said something that I found rather endearing. That was that he accepted that he and, he suspected, many others—I plead guilty to it, too—all indulge in a form of double standards in international politics, because it is almost impossible, however hard one tries, not to feel oneself influenced by whether one favours a particular type of democratic government for


disfavours a particularly undemocratic form of government elsewhere.
Therefore, I add this as a tribute to the Foreign Secretary. Having said that he made this remark, which had application everywhere, I am bound to say that on his Front Bench he probably indulges less in double standards than any of his colleagues. I hope that my praise will not prove to be offensive to him. I am glad to have given it in his absence.
I revert to the subject of double standards. Two have emerged, but 1 shall finish with a third, Shelepin. The first was when a military coup brought down an authoritarian Marxist régime in Chile. The screams and howls from the Left could be heard everwhere. It was a scandalous thing that the military, soldiers with machine guns, should actually interfere with a régime which happened to be an extremely Left-wing régime.
There was another military coup, this time in Portugal. But this time the screams were of joy, because this time it was the wicked soldiery that brought down a Right-wing authoritarian Government.

Mr. Luard: Mr. Luardrose—

Sir F. Bennett: I shall not give way. I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman's lecture, and I shall not allow him to interrupt mine.
At the particular time to which I am referring, everyone knows perfectly well that completely blatant double standards were observed by the Left in this country when the military took over in one country as to when they took over in another. I shall not withdraw or change one word. The fact that what I have said is true is what is causing such indignation, even on the sparse benches opposite.
In regard to the Shelepin case, the most fatuous suggestions have been made that the proposed visit to this country has a parallel with what the Conservatives did in relation to Dr. Caetano. I made it clear earlier that Dr. Caetano was the Head of Government of a friendly Power. I would not raise any objections if a Prime Minister or an official or a ministerial visitor were to come to this country from the Soviet Union. I have never done so when such people have come here in the past. I am not suggesting that there was anything wrong when Mr. Tito, in the days

before he was so popular, came here, and I would not object if we were to invite the South African Prime Minister to this country if we wanted to discuss something with him. But I am willing to bet that my forbearance would not be shared with hon. Members opposite.
I now turn to Mr. Shelepin. He is in none of those positions. He is, so far as I know, an ex-secret police chief—although I am not sure to what extent a secret police officer ever becomes "ex". We know that he is responsible for a great deal of bloodshed and loss of innocent lives inside and outside his own country. This has never been denied. He is invited here not as a ministerial representative on Government matters but by the British trade unions. What possible connection has Mr. Shelepin with any form of trade unionism as we know it? The only possible claim he could have, I suppose, would be as a life member of the guild of professional assassins. With that one exception, I think his links with trade unionism are singularly attenuated.
When some years ago there was a proposed visit by a team of young South African cricketers and when they were, in their way, in a similar position—they were invited by a private body in this country —the present Foreign Secretary—and I presume that collective responsibility still applies to this sphere of our activities—sent for the MCC and asked them whether they would cancel that invitation because, the right hon. Gentleman said, it would prove to be a public affront, it would cause disturbances and it would be unfair to call on the police to deal with such disturbances.
Yet when these criteria should obviously be made to apply to Mr. Shelepin, the present Home Secretary does not follow the example of his Labour predecessor. All that the Foreign Secretary could say today—and, of course, it is not his responsibility, except in a collective sense—was that the MCC was a private institution in this country and that he felt entitled to make those observations. I had not thought, although I sometimes tend to think, that the TUC was still other than a private institution in this country and not part of government. Therefore, we must assume that what the Foreign Secretary was able to do three years ago his successor is not willing or able to do today. The


Home Secretary's statement last week that he had no intention of making any representations to the TUC at all is the most classic, the most up-to-date and most blatant form of double standards with which we have been inflicted in recent years.

8.38 p.m.

Dr. M. S. Miller: As many speakers have pointed out, we have had a very wide-ranging debate on foreign affairs. We have listened to the usual crop of House of Commons experts on every aspect of that subject. I say that without any intention to disparage, because there are in the House many people who have knowledge of the whole gamut of what is going on in the world.
I cannot claim such knowledge. I confine my remarks to an area of which, like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), I have some knowledge. I refer to the Middle East. That is an area where thousands of lives have been lost and about which millions of words have been written and spoken.
It must be extremely tiresome for decent people to have to listen continuously to a barrage of propaganda from one side or another. One aspect of that propaganda deliberately fosters the idea that we should be entirely motivated by our own interests. If we take that point of view, there are at least three difficulties. First, different people have different views about what constitutes Britain's interests. Secondly, to be concerned only about our own interests means that we have to disregard all other considerations, including moral ones. Thirdly—and because I mention it last does not mean that it is the least important—in this modern world few countries are able to maintain an isolated position. Most have to make alliances and arrangements with other nations.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West made a thoughtful speech with which I almost wholly agree. However, I did not agree with what he said about Mr. Shelepin, and I take issue here with the hon. Member for Torbay (Sir Frederic Bennett). I am not tremendously concerned about Mr. Shelepin visiting Britain. He is in no different position from any other

Russian leader. He is a Russian leader whether he is a trade union leader or the ex-chief of the KGB. Although I am not happy about some of his past exploits, I should equally not have been happy about some of the past exploits of J. Edgar Hoover. But I would not have made any fuss if he had visited this country.
The uniqueness of the Middle East problem is fundamentally the avowed intention of Israel's enemies to obliterate her by any method, including war. Some people think that if they neglect this intention or gloss over it it will go away. I admit that this is put in a more subtle way nowadays. The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) used to argue the straightforward case for the Arabs. He held the view that Israel had no right to exist. Now he has a more subtle approach. The obliteration of Israel is now a two-stage procedure.
The first is that there must be another Arab State, the twenty-first Arab State in the area. When the hon. Gentleman says that there should be an Arab State in Palestine he forgets that there is one. Trans-Jordan is in Palestine, and it is an Arab State. The hon. Gentleman says that this twenty-first State should be established on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. That State, along with others, will be poised once again for the final onslaught. At one time friends of the Arab States used to spend all their time explaining why Israel had no right to be there at all. Now they tell us that the Arabs have changed their opinion and are willing to accept the presence of Israel. I hope that they are right. I would ask my Israeli friends to explore this angle carefully. There may be some truth in it, but I cannot blame the Israelis for being deeply suspicious and for asking for more tangible evidence of this astonishing change of heart. From the Israeli's point of view, the only matter which is not negotiable—everything else can be discussed—is Israel's right to exist as a free and sovereign State.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brig-house and Spenborough (Mr. Jackson) seeks, as always, to make invidious comparisons between different forms of terrorism. I condemn all terrorism. I am not even happy at the unfortunate necessity for violence when people go to war.


To go to war is different from terrorism. My hon. Friend compares the terrorism of a relatively small number of fanatical individuals in 1947-48 with the concerted and advanced methods of terrorism indulged in by a group of thugs and brigands today. He does not tell us how the terrorists in that part of the Middle East 27 or 28 years ago were utterly and completely condemned by every responsible Jewish leader. He does not say how many Arab leaders today condemn the terrorist activities of Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Army.
We cannot compare isolated acts of this description, or, indeed, the unfortunate concomitant acts of violence where sometimes innocent people are killed, with the deliberate policy of attacking no one but innocent people, no one but women and children. They do not attack Israeli soldiers. They would not dare. They attack innocent people all over the world travelling in aeroplanes which have nothing at all to do with Israel.
I was interested to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) because, in spite of the outcry it raised from the Conservatives, there was a great deal of truth in what he said. It may be putting things forward in a most idealistic way but it is the kind of world we would all hope for. I was sorry, however, that he was so disparaging about the efforts of Dr. Kissinger. With all his faults, I believe that Dr. Kissinger has made valiant attempts to solve the problem of the Arab-Israeli dispute. His efforts did not fail because of Israeli intransigence. The hon. Member for Torbay said that the Israelis had become more obdurate because they can no longer trust the Americans. The Israelis never had any guarantees from the Americans. The Israelis made it clear, and this is one of the reasons why the Russians fell out with them, that they were not prepared to become a Russian satellite in the years following independence. Neither are they an American satellite. There is not one American soldier or adviser on Israeli soil.
There is one overriding reason why the latest Kissinger effort has failed. I do not believe that Dr. Kissinger is finished. Like Muhammad Ali, he will come back again. His reason for failing this time

was Egypt's insistence that it would make no concession of any political kind, no political commitment.
The Israelis' offer of territorial concessions were met with Egyptian demands that added up to a virtual ultimatum that Israel must surrender its most important defensive positions in Sinai in return for virtually nothing. The Arab States' refusal over these past 26 years to recognise or to treat with Israel on anything but military terms constitutes the most intransigent factor in this unhappy saga. But in negotiations of the kind at which Dr. Kissinger was aiming, for the first time he had Israel and Egypt trying to discuss not merely a battle line, a line where opposing armies or potential enemies from a fighting point of view should be stationed, but an Egyptian political movement towards peace.
The Egyptians are not willing to consider peace. They say "Yes, please get out of our territory" and Israel says "We will, but what is your commitment towards peace?" There is no commitment. I believe, in common, I think, with all Members of this House, in recognising the rights of all the people in this area, and of peoples everywhere, and Israel will in the future have to negotiate with representatives of the Palestinian Arabs. But Israel has never refused to negotiate with representatives of the Arab States.
If Israel has to negotiate with the Palestine Liberation Organisation, as some of my hon. Friends would have her do, she will do so if this organisation satisfies two conditions: first, if it is evident that the organisation, as it claims, represents the wishes, desires and interests of the Palestinian people; and, secondly, if the PLO renounces its avowed intention of destroying Israel, either in one step or in two. Then I believe Israel will negotiate with that organisation.
For our part, we in this country should be giving our support to democracy. Israel is a democratic country, although it is always being examined under a microscope. Its every blemish has to be magnified as though faults exist only in Israel and not in any other country in the world. But she is a fully democratic country, unlike any other country in that area. I am not blaming other countries for that but I say that we as a democratic country


should be supporting another democratic country. We should now show Israeli people clearly and unequivocally that we, for our part, stand with them in their legitimate aspirations.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: From South-East Asia to Western Europe we see the Pax Americana crumbling. With it we see the hopes of a meaningful détente being progressively dashed. The Soviet Union and her allies are pressing relentlessly forward, in Vietnam and Cambodia, where we see the increasing length of the queues of refugees, and in Iraq, where the Kurds have for so long fought a valiant struggle against overwhelming odds and in recent months have been facing the air force of the Soviet Union itself which has a full squadron of Tupolev bombers manned by Soviet airmen based there. We see it in the Middle East, with the massive inflow of armaments and we see it now in the case of Portugal and the real threat to the hopes that so many hon. Members on both sides of the House had for that country less than a year ago.
The Western democracies are in a state of disarray. In the United States there is a non-elected President whose authority does not seem to extend even so far as Capitol Hill. No one doubts the sincerity or the great ability and tremendous efforts that Dr. Kissinger has put into the attainment of a peace settlement in the Middle East. For a valid judgment, however, one must consider how far the arrangements so far made have stood the test of time.
What has become of peace in Vietnam, of which Dr. Kissinger was saluted as the author no less than two years ago? Where do the Paris Agreements of January 1973 stand today? They can be seen now as little more than a fig leaf to cover military defeat and political misjudgment. No political solution was achieved in those Paris Agreements, or in their wake.
For the Vietnamese the war has continued unabated, and I pay tribute to their great courage in standing for two years without the support of massive American air power, without the tanks, helicopters and strike power available to the United States which had up to half a

million men there for a while. The wonder is that they have been able to withstand for so long. What of the international supervision that was incumbent in the Paris agreements? Where is that today? It has not impeded the large-scale invasion by North Vietnamese regular forces backed by Soviet armaments. We see a similar situation developing in Cambodia.
Where stands the alliance of those countries with the United States today? The hardware and military aid to them is being cut back, making it less easy for them to provide for their own defence. At the same time—and this is the principal criticism to be levelled at our American friends and the Western Alliance generally—there has been no determined effort to get a Soviet agreement to cool this scene of conflict. We see the dominoes collapsing in South-East Asia, and we must not forget that the United Kingdom still has obligations under the SEATO Treaty.
None of this makes the attainment of peace in the Middle East any easier. I deeply regret the failure of Dr. Kissinger's mission and there is no doubt that it has brought the possibility of war a great deal closer. I join the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) in the tributes they have paid to the late King Faisal, who was a great Arab leader whose counsel and wisdom will be sadly missed at this time.
We see the State of Israel asked to withdraw from the Golan Heights, from the Mitla and Giddi passes, and from the Abu Rodeis oil fields. All this Israel has expressed its willingness to do, but what has she been offered in return?—not even an agreement of non-belligerency. It is difficult to over-estimate the sense and reality of security that Israel's new borders provide. On 6th October 1973 Israel was attacked by surprise by 1,000 tanks on the Syrian front and an equal number on the Egyptian front, followed by second waves of the same amount. That was a total of 4,000 tanks—more than four times the total deployed by the United Kingdom. If those attacks had taken place on the 1967 borders there can be little doubt that Israel, which was no more than 10 miles wide at Netanya, would have been cut in two and in danger of defeat. It was because of the new


borders that they were able to turn surprise attack into a not insubstantial victory, though at the cost of 2,500 dead—the equivalent for Britain of 50,000 dead.
But in the present situation Israel is faced with the choice of relying on the security afforded by these borders or accepting at face value the declared willingness of her neighbours to accept a State of Israel on the 1967 borders against the reality of what happened in June 1967 when Israel, though not occupying a square inch of Egyptian or Syrian territory, nor Arab Jerusalem, was attacked by a massive concentration of armoured might.
One really must ask oneself what value is to be placed, not only by Isreal but by any other States, on offers of international guarantees when one sees what has become of the Paris Agreements in Vietnam, when one has seen what international supervision has meant in South-East Asia. Indeed, what reliance can Israel or other countries now place on the willingness of the United States to stand by an ally even when that requires no American troops? It is easy enough for us, as outsiders, and for friendly Governments to bring pressure to bear on Isreal to withdraw, but what if things go wrong? What responsibility and, more poignantly, what action do we take?
I believe it is time for the Western democracies to look again at our foreign policies. At the moment we are divided, and we are unsuccessful. It is time above all for Britain to reassess its position and its ability to influence events in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, which is limited enough as an individual member of EEC but would be nonexistent outside the EEC.
I believe that it is of the first importance that Britain should play the leading rôle in creating a European foreign policy, so that as a nation and as a continent we can speak with authority, so that the aspirations and interests of the British and European peoples can be taken account of and that this should be done in the closest consultation with our American allies.
Finally, I hope that every political pressure of a united alliance will be brought to hear on the Soviet Union to

abandon its present path of military and political imperialism.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: In the very few minutes which are left to me I wish to concentrate on one of the great problems in the world affairs field, and that is the situation in the south-east of Asia.
I do not believe there is any hon. Member of this House, apart from a very small minority, who can look at the whole scene in the south-east of Asia with anything short of horror. Some 18 months ago a cease-fire and an agreement were supposed to have been brought about which were going to stop the terrible fighting which the people of Vietnam have had to suffer for so many generations. Yet we now see a situation in which massive forces have invaded South Vietnam in numbers, in materials, in armour, of a strength and size which have not been seen in the past 10 or 15 years.
It is estimated that more than 13 divisions, 700 Russian-made tanks and massive supplies of arms and ammunition from North Vietnam are in the South. It can be only a matter of time before South Vietnam crumbles and is totally taken over by the Communist-backed forces of the North. But we have not heard much condemnation of this aggression from the Government benches this afternoon. I realise that the Foreign Secretary did not have time to cover this area in his speech, but is it not a tragedy when so long the world has watched the situation in Vietnam with the utmost regret, when America stood virtually alone outside the Commonwealth in helping the people of South Vietnam against aggression?
Now the point has been reached when the American will to resist is weakening day by day, and slowly but surely most of South-East Asia will be taken over by the forces of Communist aggression. The situation has a frightening number of similarities with the Europe that Hitler swallowed up piece by piece in the 1930s. I cannot help comparing with that the way in which Communism is swallowing up South-East Asia section by section.
This must inevitably affect the position in the Middle East and in Portugal. In


all these areas we see the forces of the West on the retreat, and now it is just a matter of time until Communists of various creeds and various hues and of different forms from different countries get supremacy in many parts of the world. This is the moment when the Government are cutting back massively in defence expenditure. I hope and pray that this country and the whole of the free world will wake up before it is too late.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Foreign Secretary regretted that we so seldom have foreign affairs debates. He and the Minister of State will, I am sure, be the first to agree that we have heard many good speeches today and we could have heard more had there been more time. Both sides of the House should consider how we can arrange to have more time and perhaps limit the horizons of particular debates on foreign affairs so that the House can do a better job of analysing the problems before us.
I start with the proposition that at the centre of world affairs there is a measure of peace and stability while on the periphery there is instability, rapid change and violence. By the "centre of world affairs" I mean the basic power relationships between the Soviet Union and the United States, between Eastern and Western Europe and between China, America and Japan. Broadly speaking, there is a measure of peace, or at least of an enduring if precarious armed truce, among the major power blocs. This may be founded—I think it is—on a mutual fear of the nuclear deterrent. But it has been going on long enough now for the political and commercial self-interests of the rival groupings to have developed a stake in peaceful coexistence—or whatever other phrase the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary brought back from Moscow.
One of the most important aspects of this greater relative stability in East-West relations is the improvement in the Chinese attitude towards the United States and Europe, including Britain. In this connection I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his forthcoming visit to Peking. As I said to him once before, I hope that he will encourage the Chinese

to develop their links in particular with the British aircraft industry. I hope that he will also use such influence as he may have to inquire what part the Chinese may be playing in encouraging the offensives now under way in South-East Asia.
It may be that most of the weapons used in that war by the North Vietnamese are from the Soviet Union rather than from China but we look to the right hon. Gentleman to emphasise to his Chinese hosts the very great concern that is felt in this country and, I believe, in most of the world, over the aggression that is apparently now succeeding in South-East Asia.
Another aspect of the relative improvement at the centre of world affairs is the better relationship between Western Europe—in particular, West Germany and ourselves—and the Soviet Union. In that respect, I welcome the visit that the Prime Minister paid to Moscow—although I am sure he would not expect me to be quite so enthusiastic as he was about the arrangements for our lending the Russians money at a rate that is less than it costs us to borrow it, for example, from the Shah.
The Foreign Secretary mentioned the conference on security and co-operation which has been going on, as I am sure he will agree, for a very long time. Until this afternoon the only recent news that we had of its progress was his own statement last month. He then told us that little had happened on security questions, for example on the notification of intentions to hold manoeuvres, but that agreement had been reached on family reunification and marriage. He said that there is to be a conclave of some 22 Heads of Government towards the latter part of this year. That seems a daunting prospect but I hope that it will be able to translate the agreement on family reunification and marriage into progress on the security front.
I turn now to some of the areas of instability and danger on the flanks of the great Power relationships and in so doing I apologise to the House for the necessarily kaleidoscopic nature of my speech.
First—and I have given the right hon. Gentleman notice—I must ask about the Falkland Islands. I understand that oil exploration is either under way or is


intended. This could be an asset for the United Kingdom. I also understand that the present political situation in Argentina is, to say the least, obscure. I should therefore be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could assure us that there is adequate provision for the safeguarding of any oil or gas assets that may be discovered in British waters. Further, will he confirm the assurance given to the people of the Falkland Islands that there will be no change in the sovereignty of that island without their full consent?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the recent coup in the Maldive Islands that resulted in the ousting of the Prime Minister, Mr. Ahmed Zaki? I should like to know the position of the British Service men on Gan. What is to happen to the £500,000-worth of aid that the Government have agreed to provide to cushion the blow of the closure, which I regret, of the British base at Gan?
Next, I turn briefly to the Middle East. My right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State dealt with it in some detail. I pay my tribute to the admirable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters). My hon. Friend has a very great knowledge of the Arab world. I was impressed by the four or five practical proposals that he put forward for a possible European initiative. I accept completely the Foreign Secretary's view that it might be premature to press at this stage, following the Kissinger breakdown, for a full-blown European initiative. However, I hope that he will consider seriously the wise suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury and that lie will discuss them, through the usual diplomatic channels, with his colleagues within the EEC.
I now turn to Iran, and in particular to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). My hon. Friend has evidently had some exciting experiences in that area recently. In my view—it is a view that is shared by many people in the House—Iran is now our best friend and potentially our best market in that part of the world. It is also our strongest ally.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), as the then Conservative Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, opened the doors to a massive expansion of British trade with Iran.

While the present Secretary of State for Trade has done his utmost to carry that through to success, so far the results are not commensurate with the size of the Iranian market or with the success which other countries are achieving there. I hope that when he visits Teheran shortly the Chancellor of the Exchequer will succeed where others have not. Britain has an excellent ambassador and great good will in Iran. It is the area in which to make a big push for sales and joint venture manufactures. I also believe that it would do no harm if more attention were paid to the great achievements of the Shah and if we had fewer of the carping and niggling criticisms which too often are heard. I know the Minister will reject the view of some of his hon. Friends that the Iranians have no business lending their support to a friendly ruler and nation in Oman. In my view, the efforts of the Iranians together with our armed forces, have been of great assistance to the Sultan and to the cause of peace and, indeed, to British interests in the Middle East.
I turn to the main theme of my remarks, namely, to Europe. The Conservative Party's commitment to Europe is not and cannot be in any doubt. We believe that Britain can be a safer, stronger and more prosperous country inside the Community than outside. We are not uncritical of the Community. There are some things we want to improve. There are other things, such as economic and monetary union, which will come about, if it comes about at all, very much more slowly than the Commission believes. On balance, we believe that it is best for Britain commercially, to be inside the Community, and we have no doubt it is best for us politically. We believe that it could be extremely damaging to our country, and possibly dangerous, too, if we were now to pull out.
Because that is our policy, we do not propose to be distracted from it by side issues such as the constitutional pros and cons of the referendum. We believe this to be as unnecessary as, potentially, it may be damaging to parliamentary government, and, indeed, to the constitution of the United Kingdom. But if it is to happen, we shall join with men and women of all parties and of none to win a clear majority in favour of staying in Europe.
We do not intend to be distracted either by the arguments of Labour Members about the Dublin terms. In so far as Dublin brought improvements, as I believe it did, we welcome them, but we believe that what Dublin chiefly demonstrated is what we have always believed, namely, that the Community is a flexible and adaptable partnership, ready, willing and able to accommodate itself to the needs of any of its members in difficulty. I think that has been proved, and I believe the Secretary of State now acknowledges it.
It does not concern us either that X members of the Cabinet, Y members of the Labour Party National Executive, or even Z members of the Labour Party's official conference, oppose the Government's policy. We take a comradely interest in these matters. We await with curiosity the code of good behaviour which the Prime Minister is to provide for the guidance of Ministers who wish to oppose the Government's policy while remaining responsible for it. But these are only the side shows. It is the unity of Europe, not the unity of the Labour Party which is our main concern.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) reminded the House that the question before us on Europe is no longer "Should we join?", but "Should we now pull out?" I stress that for two reasons—first, because the burden of proof does not lie on those of us who support Britain staying in Europe. The burden of proof rests on those who want to reverse what this House has already decided.
Large numbers of our fellow citizens, the nationalised industries, as well as private firms, many of the professions, farmers, commercial people, and millions of others already have made detailed arrangements for their future on the basis of Britain's being in and staying in the Community. The same goes for a large number of foreign and Commonwealth Governments. They have made agreements with us and operated them on the assumption that Britain would not go back on the Treaty of Accession that she signed. If, therefore, it is proposed that all these complex and vastly important arrangements are to be undone, the cost

needs to be counted, and the burden of proof as to why they should be abandoned rests on those who wish Britain to quit.
Those who want to withdraw—I do not doubt their sincerity—must also face their responsibility for showing to the House as well as to the country that they have a better alternative. Withdrawing from Europe would not be an easy process. There are treaties to be unwound. Trade and financial agreements—some, like Lomé, made only a few weeks ago—would need to be renegotiated. And in each case Britain would need to find satisfactory and speedy substitutes. This painful and prolonged process is most likely to take place against a background of deepening economic crisis, not excluding—I choose my words carefully—a falling away of confidence and, with it. if Britain were to be seen to be leaving the Community, a run on sterling, too.
What is the alternative—the safe haven into which some hon. Gentlemen opposite would take this country if, as they propose, we were to cast off from Europe? They are a pretty motley crew to be cast adrift with.
Some say, "Look to the. Commonwealth." Very well, let us look to the Commonwealth. The Prime Minister of New Zealand was asked last month whether British withdrawal would be in the interests of New Zealand. His answer was a categorical "No".
I am very glad that the Foreign Secretary, like my right hon. Friends before him, has been able to make arrangements for continued New Zealand access to our own and Continental markets for butter and lamb. But I think that he knows as well as I do that New Zealand has no intention whatsoever of reversing her policy of diversifying her trade, and she certainly would not do so simply to accommodate a Britain which had quit the Community.
Australia is of the same mind, and largely for the same reasons. Indeed, Mr. Whitlam could hardly have put it more plainly when, last December, he said:
The days when Australia attached value to a special relationship with Britain are over.
I find those words very sad, but I do not doubt that they are true. Mr. Whitlam went on to advise that


The British should stop shilly-shallying and make up their minds to grasp the future in Europe.
The same is true of Canada. Indeed, Canada sees in the EEC the only possible counterweight to the United States. There is no way in which those who seek to lead Britain out of Europe can find an alternative free trade area with the Canadians, much less with North America as a whole, because Canada, like the United States, has now clearly expressed her preference for what Mr. Trudeau calls a new contractual relationship with the EEC. In this, I predict that he will succeed.
So the old white Commonwealth is not only unanimous that it prefers Britain to remain in the Community; it has served notice on us that it is not prepared to alter its present policies to return to a preferential system with a United Kingdom outside the Community.
The same goes broadly for the remainder of the Commonwealth. Most of the less developed Commonwealth countries have made favourable arrangements with the EEC. It would be wrong for us in Britain to expect them to jeopardise their arrangements with a market of 250 million people simply for the sake of access to a market—our own—of only 50 million people. Therefore, if Britain leaves Europe it will be the odd man out in the Commonwealth, because the Commonwealth has now signed up with Europe. It does not offer to us a viable alternative to Europe.
Another possible alternative is a free trade area like EFTA, and a negotiated customs union with the EEC. That, too, is simply not on. Since 1972 the seven EFTA countries have signed free trade agreements with the Community. The result has been an irreversible shift in the pattern of their trade. It is no longer the case that the 40 million people of Scandinavia, Switzerland and Austria can offer us that extension of the home market for our industry which we need. On the contrary. the EEC countries are marching into EFTA. British exports to Norway went up by one-tenth in 1973, but French exports went up by seven times because France, like Britain, now enjoys virtually free trade in that country. The so-called Norwegian solution of negotiating a free trade agreement between

a Britain which has abandoned the EEC and the Community is an illusion.
Our industries and those of the Community are, broadly speaking, in competition. Yet the hard truth is that the Community can manage without the goods which Britain produces, whereas we need the Community market, which now takes more than 35 per cent. of all our exports. If it comes to negotiating a free trade agreement between a Britain which is outside the Common Market and the eight members inside it, we shall be on a pretty poor wicket. We shall be rather like a man who obtains a divorce and immediately demands favours of his former wife. That phrase was used by Sir Christopher Soames and he went on to say:
We would be the demandeurs. We would have to take what we could get and our partners would be in no hurry to oblige us.
Even if they obliged us—and there is no certainty about it—the price would be a high one. There are dozens of examples —the so-called sensitive products, the questions of processed foodstuffs, the nationalised industries and steel prices —all these and many other arrangements where, when a free trade area was agreed between the EFTA nations, and the Community, the Community called the tune. In the case of Britain, a Community we had left could be counted on to drive some very hard bargains, and Britain would have to pay for them.
I refer now to the speech of the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), who warned of the dangers to Europe and to the American alliance on the southern flank of NATO. The Mediterranean Sea could, once again, prove to be one of our economic lifelines. The Suez Canal may soon reopen. A substantial proportion of our seaborne trade and a good deal of our oil may soon be going that way. Meanwhile, the Soviet Fleet, which in the Mediterranean alone is nearly as large as that of the Royal Navy, is in a position to take advantage of the weaknesses of Turkey, of Greece and, now, Portugal. Who is to protect our commerce against that, once the Royal Navy quits the Mediterranean? The answer that the Government give is "Leave it to the Americans—the British are going home."


But what is to happen when—and not if —the United States tires of the burden of carrying the seaward defences of southern Europe, more or less on its own?
I believe that we are already in the presence of a sea change in American policy. Vietnam was a traumatic experience. The Americans are having second thoughts about their world position. Already we are seeing in Cambodia and Vietnam a profound shift in the attitudes of the American public as well as of the United States Senate. The question arises whether, any longer, Americans are willing to man the ramparts alone?
The right hon. Member for Fulham spoke of this with immense experience. I agree entirely with what he said about Vietnam, as I have done over the years. He asked whether the Americans, already withdrawing from the Far East, might not also, in the fullness of time, or sooner, withdraw from the Middle East too? He instanced the possibility of Israel being left alone. I believe, with the right hon. Member, not only that the Americans may yet refuse to exert their power in the Middle East but that the time will come when they would start removing their forces from Western Europe, too. Already they are tempted to start cutting their forces abroad. The most certain way to hasten this process is for Britain to set a bad example but cutting down and pulling back, regardless of the peril to NATO on which our peace and security depends.
It is ironic that those who most loudly oppose British membership of the EEC are most eager in their demands for Britain to cut down its own forces. "Let us stand on our own," they say, and in the very next breath call for cuts in our army, our navy and our air force. "Let us rely on the Commonwealth," they say, and in the same speech demand the final withdrawal of the Royal Navy from the Indian Ocean and the end of the RAF's Long Distance Transport Command, regardless of the fact that it is these ships and aircraft which ensure the links with Australia and New Zealand of which they speak so much.
But the most dangerous assumption is that which the anti-Marketeers make about the United States. They appar-

ently believe that a Britain which at one and the same time separates itself from Europe and cuts down its national defence will be able to snuggle up to the United States. I have lived for 12 years in the United States and have seen a good deal of its leaders. I must tell hon. Members that this assumption—that a Britain removing itself from the Community and cutting down its own armed forces can nevertheless enjoy closer links with the United States—is the opposite of the truth.
The more that Britain cuts down its defences and cuts itself off from Europe, the more dependent we shall be upon America—that is certainly true. But the less willing and able we become to carry our share of the burden, the less willing the Americans will be to man the defences for us. Isolationism in Britain encourages isolationism in the United States. A Britain which refuses to carry its share of the common defence of the West will help to beget an America which does exactly the same. And we shall be the losers. For if the British now desert their air and naval posts, for which we volunteered, on the flanks of NATO, the Americans, soon or later, may withdraw from their posts in this country.
Is that what we really want? Some Labour Members below the Gangway do want it. But for those of us who remember the appalling consequences of the Americans turning their backs on Europe in the 1920s and 1930s, any prospect of the United States now withdrawing into her shell is alarming.
If—as Heaven forbid—the Americans were to leave Western Europe, one of two things would happen. Either the Soviet Union gradually would replace the United States as the military arbiter of Europe, including Britain, or, as may be more likely, the German nation would be forced, either with or without its partners in the EEC, to extend its own armed forces to a size and strength which was capable of filling the gap left first by the British and later by the Americans. A remilitarised Germany of great power—for they can afford it—would then be competing with the Soviets for the military command of central Europe. I believe that this is a fear which many Germans themselves understand only too well.


I cannot believe that anyone with any sense of history can believe that a weakened Britain, divorced from her partners in Europe, could bury her head in the sand and remain unaffected by that.
The Conservative Party believes that Britain's place is in Europe. We believe that in Europe our country can be a stronger and a better place to live in, but above all, as my right hon. Friend said, a country which again can exert its influence for good throughout the wider world.

9.35 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. David Ennals): We have had a wide-ranging debate. There have been some thoughtful and helpful contributions from both sides of the House. It is difficult to cover all the points that have been raised. I have much sympathy with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) that we should try to organise matters rather better, so that when we have our foreign affairs debates we sometimes concentrate on particular issues. One of the troubles is that everyone wants to speak on his or her particular subject, the battle ensues and the debate becomes one such as today's. Nevertheless, this has been an extremely valuable debate.
The hon. Gentleman concentrated on Europe, especially in the last half of his speech, as did his right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). I am glad that they will be calling for a "Yes" vote in the referendum. The hon. Gentleman made some play of the differences between my right hon. and hon. Friends. They are honest differences, reflecting the differences in the population as a whole.
There is a certain danger of smugness. Opposition Members know full well that when the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was Prime Minister he failed to carry with him the people of this country when Britain joined the EEC in 1972. I have no doubt, unlike the hon. Gentleman, that the Labour Government were right to decide that the people must be consulted, that the people's views must be decisive, and that this must be done through a referendum.
Although the British Government joined the EEC in 1972, the British

people never consciously joined the European Community. The majority of them at that time were openly critical and deeply suspicious. Some were confused, and many of them were frankly just uninterested—they had not been asked. The pledges about the full-hearted support were forgotten. The battle for the hearts and minds was lost, or, more accurately, it was never fought.
I do not intend to deal with some of the points that were raised about the EEC in the debate. As my right hon. Friend said, there will be a two-day debate after Easter. I wish to indicate why I believe it is vital that there should be a substantial affirmative vote in June. The question in 1975 is: "Should we pull out?" In 1971 it was: "Should we go in?" I agree that they are two very different questions. I reached one conclusion in 1971, and I reach a quite different conclusion today. I have no hesitation in saying so. This is partly because things have not stood still. For good or ill, our trading relations have changed. The proportion of our trade with our EEC partners has greatly increased, at the expense of our trade with the Commonwealth. Our Commonwealth trading partners have re-arranged their own trading patterns, and they are now far less dependent on British goods and services. Having themselves established links with the EEC, they want us to stay in to look after those interests.
The developed countries of the Commonwealth—Canada, Australia, New Zealand—as well as the developing Commonwealth countries of Africa, Asia and the Caribbean, now clearly want us to stay in. The egg which was scrambled in 1972 cannot be unscrambled in 1975 without the risk of great danger. Certainly, it would be done only with great difficulty.
I also agree with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds that those who now call for withdrawal must prove that we could manage better outside. My experience in foreign affairs in the past 12 months tells me that Britain would be very lonely outside. We are heavily dependent upon world trade as well as world confidence in the strength of our economy. [Interruption.] It is important that there should be confidence in the strength of our economy. If we take actions which undermine the confidence


of other people in the strength of our economy, the ability of our own people to follow through our Social Democratic policies will be weakened. We do not live in an isolated world. We cannot live on our own. We must consider our relationships with the rest of the world. A decision to quit would seriously damage our prospects of economic recovery.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I did not want to intervene, but I must ask my right hon. Friend, after what he said in such firm tones, why we are having the referendum.

Mr. Ennals: We are having it for clear reasons that I think my hon. Friend knows, because we all fought on the same election platform, part of which was that the people must decide, because the parties are divided. I am stating my opinion. Some of my hon. Friends hold a different opinion. It is right that I should state mine, as they should state theirs.
It is not only the rest of the world that has changed. The European Community has also changed, partly because of our influence from the inside, I believe. The countries of the EEC and the Commission are far more realistic, less rigid in their application of Community rules, less interventionist in the sense of interfering in the way in which a Labour Government have set about tackling our national and regional economic problems.
The aims of economic and monetary union by 1980, to which the right hon. Member for Sidcup subscribed, have been set aside. The extreme advocates of European union have been restrained.
The debate has given us an opportunity to review foreign policy on a wide scale at a time when the world is confronted with serious problems. The House will agree that there are significant areas of the world where there has been a marked improvement in our relationship since the Labour Government came to power 12 months ago. As my right hon. Friend said, there is a closer intimacy in our relationship with the United States. This has been of great value in narrowing the gap between Europe and the United States, which was a disturbing feature when we came to office.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman is repeating what his right hon. Friend said, except that he has made it worse. He has suggested that relations between this country and the United States were very bad when he and his right hon. Friend came into office. I do not believe it.

Mr. Ennals: When we came into office it was very clear that there was a serious gap between Europe and the United States. It had seemed to us that in many ways the British Government were not in anything like as close contact with the United States Government as they should be. It seemed that by burying themselves within the EEC they had broken much of their bilateral relationship, which we have sought to restore. This has been an important contribution of my right hon. Friend, and I do not object to being criticised if I happen to agree with points of view that he has expressed.
My right hon. Friend also said that his visit to Moscow has helped to improve relationships with the Soviet Union, which had fallen into decay when the previous Government were in power.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Mr. James Kilfedder(Down, North)
rose—

Mr. Ennals: I have given way a number of times, and must proceed.
My right hon. Friend's visit to six countries in Southern Africa earlier this year helped to create a new basis of confidence between Britain and some of her Commonwealth partners. His meeting with Mr. Vorster was important in the search for a basis of settlement in Rhodesia—a subject to which I hope to return later.
In the Middle East we have kept in close touch with the countries particularly involved in the conflict and have sought to use our influence to promote a just and peaceful settlement. Tributes have been paid by both sides of the House to the efforts of Dr. Kissinger, and I think that all of us deeply regret the failure of his most recent initiative. It would not be helpful at present to seek to apportion blame to the parties concerned. But we must not give up hope of finding a way through the present impasse. Britain has a deep commitment


to avoiding a further outbreak of war, and that is a deep commitment which the other countries of Europe hold also.
It has been suggested in the debate that there ought to be a European position in relation to the Middle East, particularly at this time of uncertainty. I have no doubt that as each one of the EEC countries re-examines the situation, looking at whether the next stake should be towards a conference at Geneva or whether there is some other initiative, they will be looking together at ways in which they can use their contacts and their traditional relationships both with the Arab world and with Israel. It is vital that we should be ready to take any initiatives that we can and to support any initiatives that we can.
I come to other parts of the world. We have been active—

Mr. Walters: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake at least to see whether he could study the possibilities of doing something to bring the Israelis and the Palestinians together on the basis of a European initiative?

Mr. Ennals: I have no doubt that as both sides look at the question whether the next stage should be towards a Geneva conference, the question of the participants will be deeply concerned, and the question of relationships is one that inevitably must be considered by both Israel and the Arab States.
As I was saying, we have also been seeking a closer relationship with countries in Latin America, such as Mexico, Brazil and Venezuela. Here we have important commercial prospects as well as the opportunity of closer personal relationships. We have also been concerned with improving Commonwealth relationships. There is now much more consultation between the members of the Commonwealth, both at United Nations meetings and elsewhere, than ever before. We have used renegotiation itself to put relations between Europe and the developing countries of the Third World on an entirely new basis.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) referred to the Lomé Agreement. Certainly the provisions of that agreement are based on attitudes which are much more generous and more mature

than seemed possible a year ago. What Lomé really means is that we have a truly co-operative relationship between 46 countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, 22 of them Commonwealth countries.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the area of Central America and the Commonwealth, will he direct his mind to our attitude towards guaranteeing the sovereignty of Belize, which was formerly British Honduras, which I believe has some difficulty with the neighbouring State of Guatemala?

Mr. Ennals: There have been exchanges between the Governments concerned. We are anxious to find a settlement, but it must be a settlement which respects the right of the people of Belize.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ennals: I shall not give way again. I have given way to both sides, and there is only 10 mintues left.
I was referring to the Lomeé Agreement. As I have said, in the spirit of the promotion of the new agreement in Lomé, this is a step forward. The Commonwealth Conference in Jamaica next month will provide a timely opportunity to bring together the countries of the Commonwealth and bring their experience to bear on the problems which underlie the growing demand among many countries for what is called a new international economic order.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out the other day that much has been achieved, during the renegotiation. for Asian countries such as India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan, and this is an achievement to which we in the Labour Government attach first importance not just because they are among the most populous and poorest countries in the world but because we have longstanding and special ties with their peoples and their leaders. We shall certainly strive to sustain and deepen the ties which bind us with the nations of the subcontinent.
Our attitude to the European Community, particularly on this side of the House, is bound to be conditioned by the Community's own attitudes to the developing world. Certainly one of my


criticisms of the EEC has been that it was a rich man's club. I think that label is, thankfully, one that has virtually been ripped off in the past 12 months. When we see the work that has been done in expanding the EEC's aid to the developing countries there is no doubt that it has changed very significantly in the last 12 months.
A great deal has been said about Britain's rôle in the world. Certainly gone are the days when our influence was based on military might. We are no longer an imperialist Power. A number of hon. Members have raised questions which suggest that there is still an impression, perhaps on both sides of the House, that we can fulfil the rôle of world policeman. We have to recognise, as we look at all the problems in the world, that our power is not such that we can profoundly influence events that happen in far parts of the world.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) and the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet referred to South-East Asia. The whole House must feel deep concern at the grave and continuing human misery which has resulted from instability in that area. Certainly the Government deplore the countless human tragedies in Vietnam and Cambodia, and I agree with my right hon. Friend that nobody could be happy at the tragic sights that we have seen recorded in the Press in the last few days.

Mr. Flannery: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that in the same way as Dr. Kissinger has completely failed in the Middle East, he has also totally failed to understand the development of the masses of people in the area of Indo-China, and he has also failed in Chile as he failed in Greece and in Cyprus before that?

Mr. Ennals: In looking back at Dr. Henry Kissinger's achievements, I would much prefer to think of the agreement that was signed—although I am afraid it was not respected—which sought to bring peace to Vietnam rather than the long years of American involvement in Vietnam, and I am sure my hon. Friend will agree. We have in Vietnam a consequence of a long tragedy-20 years of occupation, battle and lives lost. Much though we wish to bring about a peaceful solution, we on this side of the House,

as well as other Governments, have proposed to those in power in Vietnam and Cambodia that the only solution was by political negotiation, by contact between the political leaders. These proposals were turned down. The path of violence has been followed, and this is a tragedy which we must all regret.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) made a moving speech on Cyprus, and I certainly note her request for a statement of Government policy. There is certainly no time to deal with all the aspects of that subject, but she raised two particular points. One concerned the talk that my right hon. Friend had with Mr. Ecevit. My right hon. Friend raised two matters with him. One was our concern at the continuing looting of British property and the harassment of British subjects in Cyprus, and the other was the fact that we still had not received a reply from the Turkish Government on the question of compensation. Although Mr. Ecevit is not currently a Minister, he promised to convey our views to his Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras South also raised the question of the Turkish Cypriot refugees. My right hon. Friend took his decision on humanitarian grounds because of the deteriorating conditions in the camps. This Government have never supported a partition of Cyprus.

Mrs. Jeger: What about the Greek Cypriot refugees?

Mr. Ennals: There is no doubt that there is as much concern for the Greek Cypriot refugees as there is for the Turkish Cypriot refugees. My right hon. Friend has constantly sought to use his good offices to try to bring about a situation in which refugees will be able to return to their homes. We have never supported the principle of partition.
My right hon. Friend has paid tribute to the efforts which the Governments of countries neighbouring Rhodesia are making in a search for a settlement. But the detention of the Rev. Sithole by the illegal regime on 4th March was a grievous setback. The African National Council has said, understandably, that there can be no question of resuming negotia-


tions with the Smith régime so long as the Rev. Sithole is detained without trial. We and the Governments in Southern Africa have made our view clear that the charges against the Rev. Sithole should be tested in open court, if he cannot be released.
There can be no doubt that somehow or other a way must be found to remove the obstacle to negotiations created by Mr. Sithole's detention. Mr. Vorster has already said that the alternative to a negotiated settlement in Rhodesia is "too ghastly to contemplate". I wish that Mr. Smith had shown himself to be conscious of this alternative.
Our special, legal and constitutional responsibility for Rhodesia is unchanged by recent developments. We shall discharge it to the full when the time is right. There is only one way in which Rhodesia can accede to legal and internationally recognised independence, and that is by an act of the British Parliament. I assure the House that my right hon. Friend is continuing to keep in contact with the African leaders in the hope

that the time will come when he can use his influence to promote a settlement.

Mr. Kilfedder: May I mention the oppression of religious minorities in Russia? Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Foreign Secretary will plead with the leaders in the USSR to do something to get rid of oppression in Russia? I am concerned with the case of Mr. Georgi Vinns, a Baptist Minister, who has been sentenced to five years' imprisonment.

Mr. Ennals: I cannot comment on that last point. The leaders in the Soviet Union fully recognise the attitude that the Government take towards human rights in this country. There is an understanding that our two systems are different. The principles which we believe must be carried out in our country are not observed in the Soviet Union. We recognise that we have two different systems. As my right hon. Friend said when he was referring to the agreement reached in the Soviet Union—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, Without Question put.

CALF SUBSIDIES

10 p.m.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Edward S. Bishop): I beg to move,
That the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Variation) Scheme 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.
I should like to remind hon. Members of the main points of this variation scheme. The £10 increase in the calf subsidy, which this scheme will remove, was introduced last July as a temporary measure. It was designed to offset the effects of the decisions then taken that the United Kingdom guide price for beef be increased to a lesser extent than in other EEC countries and that intervention need not be applied in the United Kingdom.
Circumstances have since changed, and with the introduction of the new support arrangements for beef recently agreed in the EEC, about which my right hon. Friend made a statement in this House on 17th February, the need for this other arrangement ceased to exist. In addition, although the EEC regulation authorising the increase expired at the end of December, since negotiations on the new régime had not then been concluded the increase continued to be paid on the understanding that steps would be taken to terminate it as soon as a satisfactory outcome had been reached. Payments will, however, not cease immediately, and I would like to stress this point.
All calves born up to the day on which this scheme comes into operation and certified live will continue to be eligible for the higher rates while they meet the conditions of the scheme. The scheme will come into operation, subject to parliamentary approval, as soon as the necessary formalities of signing have been completed—in other words, within the next few days. At stage A only calves born on or after the date of operation will be affected. At stage B, for which the requirements are somewhat different, and where the increase only became payable on 16th December 1974, the final date for the higher rates will be 31st March 1976. All carcases certified up till then will receive the higher

rates which will have been available for nearly 16 months. Thus the majority of calves certified this year will continue to receive the higher rates of subsidy.
I shall now refer briefly to the three minor amendments proposed to update the principal scheme. The first two concern carcases presented at stage B. The requirement that a carcase must be sold in order to be eligible is to be deleted. This was a legacy from the old Fatstock Guarantee Scheme. The second amendment will prevent calf subsidy being paid in addition to compensation, which already includes an assessment of subsidy potential on carcases of brucellosis or tuberculosis reactors or contacts when these are slaughtered by the Agricultural Departments under existing animal health legislation.
The third and final amendment concerns the presentation of live horned pedigree calves in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland breed societies have urged that these same animals no longer be excluded from calf subsidy when certified live. Accordingly, the Government propose to make provision in the Calf Subsidy Scheme for the existing Northern Ireland exemptions to apply.
I should like to say a final word about the financial aspects of the removal of the £10 increase which I hope will reassure some people. Although in a full year it could mean a reduction of Exchequer payments of some £34 million, in 1975–76 the immediate effect will be to reduce total payments of subsidy only by £4 million for the reasons I gave earlier. This fall will be more than offset by the firmer prices for calves and stores already evident, and the growing improvements in the fatstock market. I hope that the House will approve this scheme, which has already been debated for one-and-a-half hours about two weeks ago.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Little did any of us think on the previous occasion that this matter was debated in the House that we should find ourselves back here debating the same thing almost two weeks later. I must begin by thanking the Minister for telling us again a good many of the things that he would agree he told us on 12th March when we debated this order. But I really


cannot let the matter pass. During that debate we had a situation when the Government failed to have enough of their own supporters here to back their own legislative proposals.
You will remember, Mr. Deputy Speakerx2014;I believe you were in the Chair at the time—that when the House was divided—and my party had no part in this, the decision to divide the House was taken by some other hon. Members—we were in the lamentable position that the Government failed to have enough of their own supporters here to support their own business. This does not happen very often, and I would have thought that tonight we should have had some explanation from the Minister of State of why this lamentable situation arose. I am sure he was enormously embarrassed by the fact that his own Whips were asleep on the job.
I hear muttering from the Treasury Bench, but the fact is the Government Whips went to sleep on the job and did not get sufficient of their own supporters here. I have rarely heard Whips muttering or squawking or whatever they do as they are doing tonight. Obviously, they are in something of a tizzy. I can quite understand their embarrassment at their terrible failure in their duties two weeks ago. But I would have expected that we should have some explanation or apology from the Minister of State for his hon. Friends. I know that hon. Gentlemen further down on the Treasury Bench are muzzled, but we have not had that apology.
I accept that it is quite right that the Minister should not have to get up at the Dispatch Box tonight and read out again what he read out on a previous occasion. Naturally, I would not have expected him to do so, and we are grateful to him. But there are just one or two matters about which we really must question him.
During the previous debate he attempted to answer some of our questions but there was one matter to which I referred in my speech which I regarded as of paramount importance. Some of my hon. Friends who spoke in that debate also regarded the issue of the starting date of this scheme as of paramount importance. I intended that to be the

most important point in my speech on that occasion.
When the Minister of State replied he did not spend as much time as I would have thought was necessary in replying to the points that had been made from this side of the House. We are still uncertain of the date on which this provision will come into play. On the last occasion the Minister told us that the scheme would come into force on the date it was signed, but he did not tell us when the Government intended to get it signed. In the days when our side was in government, I happened to be a Lord Commissioner who got these matters to sign. It is very much a matter for the Government and for the Department when they present these instruments to the Lords Commissioners for signature.
We must ask the Minister of State tonight for a firm date. Is it his intention, if the House passes the scheme tonight, to invite the Lords Commissioners to sign it tomorrow? If that is so, it, as I have explained, would be a very bad and very wrong decision. I do not want to go over the ground again. It all appears on the record. If the instrument is signed tomorrow it will be grossly unfair to farmers in the beef-breeding industry whose strategy is based on spring calving. under the arrangements that the Minister has brought before the House over the last year. The fact is that farmers with autumn-calving herds get the benefit of two seasons at the higher rate of subsidy. If the scheme is signed tomorrow farmers with spring-calving herds will get the higher rate for only one and a half seasons. This is particularly unfair for the hill areas which I described the last time I spoke on this matter.
I therefore hope that the Minister of State will explain the Government's reasoning and explain that they understand why they are intending to cut back the amount of Government subsidy for the farmers with spring-calving herds.
Previously the Minister of State did not give details of the closing date for the scheme. He said very little, and I hope that tonight he will explain that he understands the difficulties involved and that he is aware that the National Farmers' Union and other organisations are very keen that the operating date of the scheme should be delayed until 1st June at the very least. It would


be wrong if the scheme were to operate from tomorrow. It would be most unfair for the people I and the Minister represent.
On the previous occasion I said that I was not able to advise my hon. Friends to vote against the scheme, and I say the same thing again tonight. I hope that the Minister will now deal in much greater depth with his reasons for bringing the scheme in immediately, if that is his plan, and I hope that he will agree to delay the operating date until 1st June if possible.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: I am glad to have another opportunity to speak about the calf subsidy. I am delighted to see that the Government have decided to extend the period of the higher rate by 11 or 12 days. It is apparently now being said that my party and I were totally responsible for this, but there was a certain amount of incitement from the major Opposition party. Perhaps we did not require much incitement, but incitement there certainly was.
We were told that the drop in the subsidy payable in the year 1975–76 will be only £4 million. I take it that that applies until April 1976 and that the loss to the farming community for 1976–77 will be £34 million. If the figure for the first year is £4 million, that means that the £10 subsidy will not be paid on only 400,000 calves. I should like to know precisely how the figure of £4 million is being arrived at, because we are now in the middle of the spring-calving period. The calves which are being punched now and in the autumn are apparently the only calves on which the extra £10 subsidy will be paid. The 40,000 calves on which subsidy will not be paid will presumably be born between 13th March and about the end of June. Is that so? That is a reasonable question, because we are now at the peak of the spring-calving period and in the last 12 days a lot more calves will have come into the scheme. Will the Minister say how much this represents in payment to the farming community?
The Minister also said on the last occasion when replying to the debate on this matter that the Government did not intend to end this scheme suddenly. But

in actual fact it will end suddenly; it is just the fact that it will take some time for the results to show. There is no tapering arrangement whatsoever.
A further point I should like to make is that the Government seem always to tie calf production and beef production together as if it were the same people who were going to receive the benefit of the various subsidies. That is not so. We are talking about two completely different classes of farm production, two completely different sets of farmers.
I should like to raise once more the question of pedigree heifer calves in Northern Ireland. I am the first to welcome this concession but I should like to ask whether only those pedigree calves which have been born after the date on which this scheme comes into operation will qualify, or whether the calves at present being punched will qualify for the extra £10. Also, is there to be any possibility of seeing the scheme extended to the Charolais and Hereford breeds, because there are other pedigree breeders and other calves of dual-purpose breeds which I believe should get this extra money as well and should be allowed to qualify with their horns attached?
The rate of subsidy is a matter which I have had a brief look at this afternoon. I find that when the calf subsidy scheme was first introduced in 1952 it was at the rate of £5 for steer calves and £2 for heifers. If we take £1 at the value it was in 1952 and compare it with the pound of today we find that today that same pound is worth only 34p, so there is a very large net drop in the value of the subsidy to the farming community. I wonder whether the Minister has taken this into account.
I would also ask the Minister whether he has had his attention drawn to the letter from the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters Association as to the difficulties that are being encountered with the end product of calves—I refer to beef. It would appear that a very large number of these cattle are being exported to the Republic of Ireland, and the allegation is made that, in fact, the fixed premiums and the variable premiums are paid on the live cattle in Northern Ireland, the cattle are then smuggled out of the country to the Republic, and the premiums are paid on the dead weight again, on the same cattle. I should like to ask the


hon. Member if that is so and what steps are being taken to correct the situation.
Furthermore, I should like to ask the Minister if there is any record of smuggling of calves from the Republic into Northern Ireland. Do we have a situation in which there are certain areas in Northern Ireland where many of the cows seem to have twin and triplet calves on which subsidy is paid? This is a very serious matter and one which seems to be lost sight of very often, because owing to this smuggling business there has been a loss in Northern Ireland ancillary industry of some 355 jobs in the last few months and a loss of 184,000 pigs. This is not only a condemnation of the Government's security policy but a condemnation of the ability of the Department of Agriculture to keep track of what is going on in the country. I should certainly like to raise the matter here, which is the first opportunity I have had, and try to find out whether, in fact, the smuggling which exists in either pigs or beef cattle extends to calves.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has gone across the border himself.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I first thank the Leader of the House for allowing us three hours of valuable parliamentary time to discuss the Calf Subsidies Scheme. Last year the Welsh Grand Committee had only two-and-a-half hours in which to debate agriculture. So things are on the up and up for the agricultural industry.
I will not repeat what I said a fortnight ago when the motion was last discussed at length in the Chamber and when I had the privilege to speak. The Government failed to get the motion approved because only 15 Government supporters were in the Chamber, but I am sure that they will do much better tonight.
I declare an interest as I did on the last occasion, in that I rear Welsh Black cattle on my farm. Today I received a letter from Mr. Evan Lewis, the General Secretary of the Farmers' Union of Wales, from which I will quote two short paragraphs:
Since it is possible that the scheme will come up for further debate next Tuesday

when a commencement date will be set, could you do everything possible to have that commencement date set after spring calvings are over? It would be ridiculous for the scheme to come into effect in the middle of the spring calving season.
I agree with the sentiments expressed in that letter, and I hope that the Minister will take heed of what other union members in Wales have to say.
I ask the Minister to answer two or three questions on the calf subsidies which are burning issues. Are we bound by the EEC regulations to accept a reduction of £10 per head for every calf reared in this country? Secondly, are we bound by the EEC regulations during the next year or two to do away with the calf subsidy scheme that has been operating in Britain since 1952? Thirdly, why were the Government in favour of increasing the calf subsidy by £10 a head last year, when within nine months we are considering a motion to revert to the crisis period of 1974 when farmers, particularly livestock farmers, suffered financial loss through the Government's lack of foresight? I wonder for how long the stop-go policy will continue and whether it will change if we decide to stay in the Community.
During the debate on 12th March I asked the Minister to clarify a certain matter, but unfortunately he did not. A Friesian breeder when presenting a Friesian heifer at a livestock auction sale does not qualify for the Government subsidy, although he is entitled to the intervention variable premium, and after slaughter the same beast will not qualify for the calf subsidy. On the other hand, if the same producer decides to send a similar type of heifer to the slaughterhouse and present the beast for calf subsidy and the fatstock variable premium he will, rightly, qualify for both. I ask the Minister to clarify why this discrepancy has been allowed to drag on from one year to another since 1952.
I have decided, in conjunction with my colleagues on the Liberal bench, to vote against the motion because I believe that the livestock sector of the agricultural industry will not tolerate a policy which results in farmers being unable to plan ahead because of the Government's lack of understanding of the problem, and creates financial worries among hill and lowland farmers who depend on the calf


subsidy for part of their gross profit and for their livelihood.
On the one hand the Government are trying to encourage beef production and on the other they are doing away with some of the most important subsidies in the agricultural industry. I cannot see how the Government can justify a cut in a subsidy of such importance to the livestock sector. Perhaps we shall know later whether it is a directive from the EEC. The agricultural crisis of 1974 must not he repeated this year. If it is repeated, food production will fall and our food import bill will increase. That will happen at a time when we can ill-afford to pay any more.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Bishop: As the House knows, we debated this scheme for one and a half hours two weeks ago. I am sure that we are all grateful to have another opportunity to debate it tonight.
The point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) was raised not only two weeks ago but by several hon. Members tonight. I must remind the House once again that until 30th June of last year the maximum rates for calf subsidies were £8·50 for a male animal and £6·50 for a female. As from 1st July the Government increased the maximum rates by £10. That is the item that we are now discussing.
Another point I should make is that the subsidy was accepted as a temporary measure due to the circumstances which faced the industry at that time. It was linked with the United Kingdom guide price for beef. That price was increased by a lesser extent in the United Kingdom than in any other member State. That was because the Government did not wish to apply intervention.
The hon. Member for Westmorland said that the reduction should be delayed so as to allow spring-born calves to get the benefit of the higher rates. As I have said, the increase in subsidy was introduced last year as a temporary measure in conditions which no longer apply. Whatever the effective date, some calves will be born on the wrong side of the change. No matter how long the subsidy continues, some calves will not qualify. Calves born up to the date on which the scheme is changed will continue to

receive the higher rate of subsidy as they become eligible. What matters is the support system operating when the calves are certified rather than when they are born. The first calves receiving the lower rate will be less than eight months old when certified next November, but by the time the spring calves reach certifiable age their owners will be benefiting from the new beef régime which was introduced by my right hon. Friend following his statement in the House in February. That is a very important factor, as is shown by the market prices obtaining today.

Mr. Jopling: Does not the Minister realise that, although he is right in saying that some of the calves will qualify, the difficulty is that the starting point will come right in the middle of the spring-calving season? As I think I said two weeks ago, there will be a great temptation for some farmers—I agree that it will be wrong—to pretend that calves born after the starting date were, in fact, born before that date. Naturally, that will give rise to disputes. If the Minister were to agree to try to find a starting date after the bulk of the spring calving was over far less trouble would be caused.

Mr. Bishop: We should look at the position the other way round. The present Government increased the subsidy by £10 last year, more than doubling the amount. Therefore, the industry has had the benefit of that situation for that period of time. The whole point of the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend at the Council of Ministers in January was that as soon as the new régime came into effect the increase in subsidy would be phased out. The Community regulation authorising subsidy expired at the end of December. When it was introduced it was envisaged that a new beef régime would be operative by the end of the year. We were able to continue payment at the higher rate, however, during the extended period of negotiation of the new régime, and many producers have benefited from this, but those circumstances no longer apply.
In regard to the question as to when the scheme will come into operation, the fact is that no actual date of operation for the reduction at stage A can be specified in the scheme. This is the result of a technicality. The scheme cannot


come into operation until it has been approved by both Houses of Parliament. I understand that it has been approved by the other place, but it has yet to be signed by the appropriate Ministers. Under the parent legislation, rates cannot be reduced for calves born before the scheme reducing those rates comes into operation. Therefore, the actual date of operation cannot be specified in the scheme until the due processes have been completed. In practice instruments come into operation a matter of days after approval in the House.
I turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland about the promise to the EEC to terminate by a specified date. The point is that the regulation authorising us to pay the increase expired in December and we continued to pay the higher rates on the understanding that we would terminate them when the new régime came into effect.
I noticed that in the debate on this subject on 12th March the hon. Member for Westmorland said in an intervention
I very much hope that the scheme AM not be signed until, at the earliest, 1st April."— [Official Report, 12th March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 736.]
As a result of circumstances, the industry has had the benefit of the increased subsidy for that period and we are within four days of 1st April. The cost of the increase in subsidy is about £100,000 per day. We are now in a situation where we must carry out our undertaking to Brussels to phase out this increase in subsidy.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Minister agree that the calf subsidy was higher 10 years ago than it is today and that the cost of production has increased by 100 per cent. in the past 10 years?

Mr. Bishop: I do not think that point is relevant to this discussion. The point I was making—and I was not wishing to make a party point—was that when the Conservatives were in power the maximum rates of calf subsidy were £8·50 on a male animal and £6·50 on a female. We are reverting to that, the industry having had the benefit of the £10 a head increase in subsidy. The subsidy will still be paid for a considerable period yet. The final date for the higher rates will be 31st March 1976.

Mr. Jopling: The Minister quoted what I said on 12th March when I was trying to give some sort of let-out to the Minister and asking whether the scheme could be delayed being signed until at least 1st April. However, that was not my first bid, so to speak. I also made the point in that same intervention. referring to 1st April:
Many of us regard that date as totally wrong and believe that it should be extended until 1st June."—[Official Report, 12th March 1975 Vol. 888, c. 736.]
I believe strongly that it should be delayed until 1st June, but I suggested at least 1st April to give a little more leeway to the industry. I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to that suggestion.

Mr. Bishop: In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, I accept what he says. I did not want to distort his remarks. When he said that he hoped the date would be at least until 1st April, I reminded the House that we are only a few days away from that date. When he mentions the date 1st June, it may be that other hon. Gentlemen will want the period to be extended even beyond that date. The point is that the market is beginning to firm up, and that prices obtained for live cattle have risen by around £3 a live cwt., as forecast by my right hon. Friend in his announcement about the new beef régime earlier in the year.
Let me turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) about calf smuggling. Special steps are taken by the Northern Ireland Agriculture Department, which employs over 100 people, to enforce the subsidy and to watch for irregularities due to smuggling.
The Public Accounts Committee has recently gone into the matter in detail with the Ministry and accepted the explanation of the efforts made to avoid calves from Southern Ireland receiving the subsidy. I assure the House that we are keeping the matter under review in company with the Agriculture Ministers concerned in the Northern Ireland Office.
Regarding the £4 million and how it was arrived at, I should point out that the increase in subsidy is being continued for about another year before being phased out. In that period the amount payable will be reduced by about £4 million.
Only pedigree calves born after the order operates will be exempted from de-horning in Northern Ireland. Only the Hereford and Charolais heifers are specified in the de-horning exemption. However, I shall be pleased to write to the hon. Member for Westmorland on this matter in due course.
What matters is not whether we have the extra £10 calf subsidy which the Government brought in last year, but whether the industry is getting the higher prices which therefore make the extra subsidy unnecessary. Looking at market prices day by day, the evidence is that the market is firming up and that new confidence is returning to the industry. Nevertheless, the industry has the benefit of the subsidy until April 1976. I am sure that it must be grateful for the help that has been given by my right hon. Friend.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I should like to take up some of the points referred to by the Minister.
First, I must declare my interest as a farmer.
I feel that we must put on record a correction to some of the remarks made by the Minister in winding up. Many people in farming have had a very hard, wet winter. I wish that the cattle prices were firming up, as the Minister claimed. This is not the time to withdraw or reduce subsidies. The country will suffer in the lone run because the meat will not be available.
The Minister referred to the market hardening up. The fact is that good quality Hereford calves might make £25 apiece at this time, whereas 12 to 18 months ago they were fetching at least £60. Therefore, there is hardly a hardening up of the market.
The majority of those who have spring-calving beef herds have only just started to calve and there have been many losses. I have checked with many people engaged in breeding. Because of the wet winter and the high cost of fodder, cattle have not been fed on normal rations. In consequence, many have been calving in a poor state and calves have been dying in large numbers. Also, substantial numbers of the beef herd have already died

from magnesium deficiency. Because of cake costs, farmers have not been able to provide their cattle with the right sort of ration. That has been tragic. I know one farmer who has lost 13 cows in the last two weeks. Similar losses have been experienced by those engaged in lambing. calf subsidy. If the date were moved
This is the wrong time to reduce the to 1st June it would be of great help to farmers such as myself. It would be helpful for us to know that, once the spring calving was over, this year's births would be included. It is nonsense to say that the trade has improved and that, therefore, the subsidy is not needed.
I wintered a large number of last year's yearlings, which I hope to market in a month. I am told that I shall be lucky to receive £50 apiece for them. With the £18 steer subsidy, the total will be £68. A year or two ago the figure would have been over £100 apiece.
This is no time to withdraw the subsidy. At this time the Government should support those farmers who have hung on, hoping for better times. The subsidy is to be removed and farmers are to receive nothing in its place. For a long time EEC farmers have benefited from loans at reduced rates of interest through land banks. These are not available to the livestock farmers in the United Kingdom. An undertaking was given when the beef régime was introduced that some of these other facilities would be made available to our farmers. At a time when interest rates are so high it is wrong to strike this blow at agriculture. I hope that there will be a change of opinion and that this measure will be delayed until 1st June. That would be a move in the right direction.

Mr. Bishop: Mr. Bishop rose—

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The Minister is extending this debate because he has not dealt with some of the questions asked.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) asked three important questions which are disturbing farmers. There is a strange anomaly whereby a Friesian heifer does not attract calf subsidy. If the heifer is fattened and passed to auction it attracts the fatstock guarantee but not the calf subsidy. If the same


animal is delivered directly to a slaughterhouse and sold on the hoof, it attracts the fatstock guarantee and the calf subsidy. Surely the Minister can deal with the matter. Either he knows or he does not know. If he does not know the answer, he should say so. This matter is disturbing farmers and it deserves an answer. It is not every day that we discuss these matters.
The Minister has not answered the second question. Did the Minister make an agreement with the EEC Ministers that the calf subsidy should be reduced by £10? Is that the reason why the spring calves are excluded this year?
Is the EEC against an extension of the calf subsidy system? Will that system be phased out in the next year or so?
The Minister, who has special responsibility for agriculture, is engaged in these matters every day. The agricultural industry will be greatly obliged to hear answers to those questions.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Bishop: In reply to the question of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), there is evidence of a strengthening of the market. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the price on 10th March—

Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Deputy Chief Whip to keep remonstrating with hon. Members opposite for exercising their rights under the Standing Orders to address the House within the time allowed for the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): That is not a matter for the Chair. I have not noticed any such movement.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): It could be that the Deputy Chief Whip was just making complementary remarks about hon. Members opposite. The convivial relationship that I have with the hon. Members opposite will convince them that that is so.

Mr. Bishop: I was drawing attention to the fact that the price for all clean cattle in the week commencing 10th March 1974 was £21·49 and the total returns for certified cattle show a payment of £23·17 per live hundredweight. My right hon. Friend said on 17th February that in the agricultural prices for the current year his aim would be to provide a full return for producers of between £22 and £23 per live hundredweight.
There is real evidence of firming up of the price. That is the justification for the steps being taken this evening. In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), the dairy heifer may go into the dairy herd, so we then have to wait until it is slaughtered for beef. That is the only way in which we know whether it comes under stage A or stage B.
As to whether we are under any obligation to make this change, until July last year the subsidy was £8·50 for male heifers and £6·50 for female. This was raised by £10 a year as a temporary measure. On 21st January this year the Council of Ministers agreed that the United Kingdom should continue its variable premium scheme until the new EEC beef régime took effect. The Minister said that in expectation of satisfactory adjustments to the beef régime this year he was prepared to discontinue the special supplement of £10 per annum as soon as the necessary legislative provision could be made. During the meeting between 10th and 12th February, when the new beef régime was settled, he confirmed that the £10 would be discontinued and information was included in his statement in the House on 17th February. I believe that all hon. Members welcomed the package at that time, as did the industry. It showed that we recognised our obligation to phase out the increase in subsidy. That is the real point of the debate.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 71, Noes. 11.

Division No. 160.]
AYES
[10.49 p.m.


Armstrong, Ernest
Canavan, Dennis
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carmichael, Neil
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)


Bishop, E. S.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Cryer, Bob


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Coleman, Donald
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)


Buchanan, Richard
Concannon, J. D.
Dormand, J. D.




Duffy, A. E. P.
Leadbitter, Ted
Small, William


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Snape, Peter


Eadie, Alex
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stewart, Rt Hon M (Fulham)


Edge, Geoff
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Strang, Gavin


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McElhone, Frank
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Flannery, Martin
McNamara, Kevin
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Ford, Ben
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tierney, Sydney


Golding, John
Mawby, Ray
Tinn, James


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Harper, Joseph
Newens, Stanley
Ward, Michael


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oakes, Gordon
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Owen, Dr David
Whitlock, William


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Palmer, Arthur
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Janner, Greville
Prescott, John
Woodall, Alec


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Roderick, Caerwyn



John, Brynmor
Rooker, J. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lambie, David
Sillars, James
Miss Betty Boothroyd and


Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. David Stoddart.




NOES


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Penhaligon, David



Beith, A. J.
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hooson, Emlyn
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Mr. David Steel and


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Mr. Cyril Smith.


Kilfedder, James
Wigley, Dafydd



Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Variation) Scheme 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.

CENSUS

11.0 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. David Owen): I beg to move,
That items 7, 8, 9(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j), 10, 11(a)(b)(c)(d), 14, 15, 17(a)(b), 18(vi), 19, 20, 21(a)(b)(c) in Schedule 2 and items 6, 8. 10(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i), 11(vi), 12, 13, 14(a)(b)(c) (d)(e), 16 and 17 in Schedule 4 to the Order in Council entitled the Census Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Mr. Deputy Speaker has selected the amendment to this motion in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), to leave out from "That to "to" and to insert:
item 17(a) in Schedule 2".
The Chair understands that it would be for the convenience of the House if the motion which has been moved and the motion
That the draft of the Order in Council, entitled the Census Order 1975, which was laid before this House on 20th February, be not submitted to Her Majesty.
were to be debated together. I should, however, remind the House that it will

not be possible for me to put the Question on the latter motion after 11.30 p.m.

Dr. Owen: The draft order providing for a census of the population of Great Britain to be taken in 1976 has been laid before the House under the Census Act 1920. It is subject to negative resolution, but some of the items of information which it is proposed to include in the census returns are not specifically authorised in the Act and require approval by affirmative resolution of both Houses. The motion covers the items concerned, which are printed in bold type in Schedules 2 and 4 to the draft order.
Since there is a Prayer against the order, we have the opportunity to debate the order in full, and I will briefly explain its provisions. The House will remember the controversy which surrounded the 1971 census. At that time it was felt in some quarters, I believe, that the content of the census and the arrangements for it had not been adequately explained to Parliament and had not been adequately debated. We have tried to overcome this problem by ensuring that as far as possible there can be no such feeling on this occasion, and the Government published on 20th February a White Paper on the 1976 census of population outlining the reasons for taking a midterm census, the topics it would cover and how it would operate. I hope this will help the House. The White Paper was an innovation—no previous census had been explained in this way—and I


hope the House will agree that its publication has been useful in setting out our proposals and also in providing a basis of information for this debate.
Because the White Paper has been published I will not describe all the details of the order, but I shall be happy to check up any individual points which hon. Members may raise.
The annual expenditure of central Government and local government now represents over 45 per cent. of the gross national product. Another factor is the speed at which our society is changing. Populations of local areas can change nowadays, in numbers and characteristics, with great rapidity. More than one person in 10 changes his address every year, and this makes it important that the information available to us is as up to date as possible. Moreover, the new local and health authorities set up as a result of the major changes in local government and the administration of the health service require up-to-date information for their activities. Yet without a census in 1976 we and they would be working as far ahead as 1983 or so, when the first results of a 1981 census would be expected, on information dating back to 1971. Clearly, this would be unsatisfactory. We have a right to expect that the planners, whose activities touch our lives in so many respects, will have a better base for their work than out-of-date statistics.
It will be seen from Article 4 of the draft order that the census is to be a full count of the whole population. Because of the need for accurate information on the size of local populations and the increasing demand for statistics relating to quite small areas, a sample census as was taken in 1966 would not give us the full information which we need. But we realise that filling in forms can be time-consuming and burdensome for many people, and we have tried to keep the number of questions which each form-filler will have to answer to a minimum. This is not easy when information is urgently needed on so many different subjects, but the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has devised and tested a sampling system which reduces the load which each person questioned must bear. This sampling system will be applied to the returns for all the 50 million or so people in England and

Wales. In Scotland, with a total population of 5¼ million people, the small sizes of the populations of many local areas make this sampling system inappropriate. A single set of questions differing from each of the 10 sets in England and Wales will, therefore, be asked throughout Scotland, and to reduce the burden on the public some of the topics covered in England and Wales will be omitted in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will say more about the Scottish arrangements should he catch Mr. Speaker's eye later in the debate.
In 1971 a number of people asked whether the form for a private household could be filled in by the husband and wife as joint heads of the household, and we have recognised this in our draft order. Members of private households who do not wish to furnish their particulars to the head of the household will under Article 5(5) be able to obtain their own form which they can return direct to the enumerator. I can also mention that envelopes will be available in non-private establishments for those who want to seal their returns before handing them in to the management, although this is not provided for in the order.
The House will rightly attach importance to the arrangements to be made to safeguard confidentiality once the information is in the possession of the census organisation. By "census organisation" I mean the two offices which conduct the census—the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and the General Register Office for Scotland, including the census takers who will be specially recruited for the purpose. In assigning the enumerators to districts, the local census officers will be instructed to follow the principle, as far as possible, of keeping them away from areas where they already know or are known to the inhabitants through their business or personal contacts. But there can never be a complete guarantee that an enumerator will not know or be known by any householder in his district, especially if it is in one of the more remote rural areas.
Where an enumerator and a person he is enumerating are none the less known to one another, the enumerator will be instructed to offer an envelope in which the return can be sealed before it is


handed to the enumerator. In this way the return will bypass the enumerator as the envelope will not be opened by him. There will also be a procedure for sending in a form by post. The great majority of householders find the traditional method of "doorstep" enumeration perfectly acceptable and many—especially old people—welcome the help enumerators can give them with any difficulties they may have in completing the forms. All the alternatives to the normal method of handing back forms to the enumerators who check for completeness on the doorstep will add to the complexity of the operation and increase the time taken and the cost.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The Minister will agree that it would be helpful to clarify the situations in which return of the form by post will be permitted. These were described in the White Paper as "exceptional circumstances". The hon. Gentleman has not used that phrase tonight.

Dr. Owen: It is open to anyone to do this. The problem, as was explained in the White Paper, "Security of the Census," published in July 1973 by the Conservative Government, is that it adds considerably to the cost of enumeration.
Members of the "field force" will be liable to the penalties laid down in the Census Act 1920 if they divulge any census information. These penalties include imprisonment for up to two years. Staff at the Census Offices will be subject also to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act 1911. Strict physical security arrangements will be made for the transit of the documents to the Census Offices and at the Offices themselves. The Registrars General have taken account of the recommendations of representatives of the British Computer Society made after the 1971 census for increasing the protection of the computer records. The physical security of the OPCS computer installation has been reinforced and a new computer operating system with more built-in safeguards introduced. Finally, care will be taken to ensure that the statistical tables produced from the census do not reveal information about identifiable individuals or households. I have dwelt on this because many Members are rightly worried about these

aspects. I hope they will consider that these safeguards are substantial.
I turn now to the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). This seeks to delete from the order all the affirmative resolution items in Scotland and all of them except the usual address one year ago in England and Wales. Thus, in effect, the amendment would exclude from the census all except the subjects which were specifically mentioned in the schedule to the Census Act 1920. That is a list of items that were of particular importance to Government at that time. But the information needed by Government changes with time and the effect of the amendment now would be to exclude from the census a number of topics, all of which are important and many of which are related to items that the amendment does not seek to exclude. In selecting the subjects for inclusion in the census the Government have subjected all suggestions to rigorous scrutiny and have rejected any that were not of first importance to central or local government in carrying out their jobs today. I believe that to do this is far better for today's conditions than to refer back to conditions in the 1920s.
In the early-day motion on this subject the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and other hon. Members propose that items excluded from the census be covered by a voluntary social survey or a supplement to the census form to which no penalty for failing to answer would be applied. A social survey unconnected with the census would not be a satisfactory way of collecting such information. Practically all the information in the census is interrelated—for instance, educational qualifications are classified by the occupations and industries in which their holders work—so that unless the survey's results were to be related to those of the census most of the census questions would have to be repeated in an unconnected survey. The suggestion for a voluntary section in an otherwise compulsory census form would be likely to cause great confusion and probably affect the quality of response even to the compulsory questions. That is the advice I have been given, and I have studied it carefully. We in Britain are not alone in rejecting the voluntary element of a


census. Experience has led most other countries to the same view. However, it is possible to relegate some questions which might otherwise be included in the census to voluntary surveys linked to the census.
However, the distinguishing mark of voluntary surveys is that some people do not answer them and subjects can be covered in such surveys only if the level of non-response does not invalidate the results. In the voluntary pre-test of the census which was carried out last year, a response of some 80 per cent. was achieved. This is a high level indeed, and we greatly appreciate the co-operation given by the public. But in many cases it is just not possible to base policies on information where replies from two out of 10 people are missing.
This proportion far exceeds the size of the groups about which it is most important to get information, for instance, the households without all basic amenities in their dwellings and the immigrant communities. Moreover, we could never be certain that the people who did give information were representative of the people who did not. Indeed, one might suspect that they would not be. I hope that this point will be borne as carefully in mind by hon. Members who have taken a different view.
Thus I am forced to conclude that we are right to retain the element of compulsion. It is the only way of avoiding a situation in which the replies from the people who do answer the questions are not wasted by the failure of others to reply, and of ensuring that the statistics provide a sure base for policy.
The Government, however, have in mind four voluntary surveys linked to the census, two to be conducted throughout Great Britain, and the other two to be conducted in Scotland only. They will be carried out by the Census Offices. The proposed surveys are described in the recent White Paper on the Census, and I shall be happy to answer questions on them.
Understandably there has been criticism of the time it has taken to produce all the results of the last census. A very great volume of material has been produced from the 1971 census already, nearly three times what was produced from any of its predecessors. On the

other hand, I acknowledge that several detailed sets of tables remain outstanding on particular topics, such as transport to work and migration. They are part of the main publication programme, and we are doing our best to ensure that they will be laid before the House by the middle of this year—just over four years after the census was taken. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh but it is a formidable task to assess these statistics.
The Government accept that it is important to improve the speed at which the census results are produced. We plan to complete all the main tabulations from the 1976 census within three years. To achieve this we shall need to keep an eye on the volume of analyses that we agree to undertake so that we do not jeopardise the early production of much-needed information by diverting resources to less important statistics.
There are two main stages in the production of census statistics: firstly, the information on the forms has to be converted by clerks into a format which the computer can handle. To speed up this part of the operation we shall decentralise it so that we can recruit a larger work force spread between a number of regional offices. Secondly, there is the computer processing; a larger computer is being installed at the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys with the capacity to handle the data more quickly. As in 1971 this will do the main tabulation work for the whole of Britain; a new computer in the General Register Office for Scotland will do editing work on the Scottish data and some of the Scottish tabulations.
The House will wish to know how much the proposed census will cost. We have estimated the total cost at 1974 Public Expenditure Survey prices as £21 million for the Census of Great Britain. This does not include the cost of the follow-up surveys designed to extend the information provided by the census. Of the £21 million, £17½ million is for the Census of England and Wales and £3½ million for Scotland. In spite of the larger number of staff we shall be employing at the peak period and the enhanced computer resources, the cost in real terms is unlikely to differ substantially from the cost of the 1971 census. These are difficult decisions, particularly at a time


when public expenditure is under great scrutiny. The costs are borne by many Government Departments. [HON. MEMBERS: "The taxpayer."] Of course it is borne by the taxpayer, but the taxpayer is also interested in how the Government spend the money.
This is a serious issue. Hon. Members will wish to make points of criticism at this stage rather than a few weeks or a few days before the census. The purpose of the debate is to try to ensure that the census is conducted in a way that is as far as possible free from controversy on the actual day of the census. It is in that spirit that I am taking part in the debate, so that we can sort out now rather than later any problems that exist.
I am sure that the House will agree that if the Government and the local authorities are to provide the wide range of services that the community expects of them, and to do so efficiently, they need a correspondingly wide range of information on which to base their decisions. It is the function of the census to provide this detailed information for the whole country and in a consistent manner for areas within it.
I shall be happy to deal with detailed points about the conduct of the 1971 census and under-enumeration as I reply to the debate. The success of the census is absolutely dependent on public understanding and on the public's certain knowledge that the information will be protected.
I hope that the House will join me in acknowledging the quite outstanding record of the Census Offices over more than 100 years since they were established in maintaining the high standard of confidentiality of the personal information provided by the public. The information collected in the proposed census and in the follow-up surveys I have described will be given the same high degree of protection.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that our proposals in the draft order give the country the type of census it needs in the middle 1970s.

11.17 p.m.

Dr. Gerard Vaughan: This is a very complicated matter. May I first say how much we welcome the

White Paper, which has been a great help to us in understanding the order.
Ever since the first census in 1801 the great national head count—which is what it is--has aroused anxiety and controversy. I am sure that the Minister of State will not be too surprised if I say straight away that we are very sceptical about much of what he is proposing.
First, we have serious doubts based on the delays in presenting the previous census material. So much of this information is useless if it is delayed too long. The Minister said that there had been difficulties with the 1971 census, but I remind him that we still await the general report from the 1966 census, and volumes from the 1971 census promised for 1973 have still not appeared. According to paragraph 32 of the White Paper, material will be available within three years, but on the previous track record I very much doubt that.
Secondly, we have doubts about the form proposed. Some of the sampling of the 1966 census, which was a 10 per cent. sample, proved faulty. The Minister should be more convincing about the 10 different variants proposed this time. Will they produce similar sampling errors? Would we have done better to have another sampling process but on a better basis than the 1966 sample? Will the Minister say a little more about that?
Thirdly, there is the vast cost that is involved. I understand that the 1966 census cost £3½ million. The 1971 census was estimated at £10 million but the figure is already beyond that. The Minister now says that the next census will cost £21 million. My guess is that we shall find that figure equally wrong. Can he justify that vast expense when fewer questions are to be asked. Why are fewer questions to be asked if the questions were all so essential last time? Will there be savings in the spending of various Departments as a result of all this information? If there are to be savings perhaps the Minister will give us some examples.
Before we support the Minister I think we are entitled to ask him whether he has gone into this matter at all. Will he give us a departmental breakdown of how much will be saved? Which of his colleagues has he consulted? A number of Departments are affected and we need


to know the answers to the questions that I have raised.
This census is likely to be the most complicated ever to administer. Will the staff be available? Personally I doubt whether it will be available. Is there not a real danger that it has been made so complicated that by the law of diminishing returns the errors will increase to an extent that will make much of the information unreliable? I have a number of authorities that suggest that that is likely to be the case.
Let us consider the use which is to be made of the material that is gathered? Will it justify the huge cost that is involved? I was not reassured when I read an article in Statistical News by the Deputy Director of the Census Office. He wrote:
I see a real need to find out more about the use to which the census data are put.
Has the Minister seen that need? Has he investigated it adequately? Sweden, the Netherlands and West Germany avoid many of our census problems by having population registers. In Canada the authorities run monthly sample surveys for the same purpose. In Britain we have the General Household Survey. Why should we not greatly extend that survey, as has been done in the United States and in West Germany? Again, I must ask the Minister whether he has gone into these matters. Could we not, for example, immensely reduce the costs as well as increase the accuracy of the information?
Why are the definitions constantly changed? It is now impossible to compare even such ordinary subjects as lavatories, habitable rooms and kitchens between one census and another. In 1961 kitchens were counted as rooms only if meals were regularly eaten in them. In 1966 all kitchens counted as rooms. In 1971 they counted only if they were more than 6 ft. wide.
The OPCS appears to regard the census operation as akin to taking a snapshot of the British population on census day without having any regard to the past. We cannot compare various social classes because some occupations have been moved from one class to another. There will be no overall figures for the British Isles for cookers, sinks, hot water and school qualifications because certain ques-

tions are not to be asked in Scotland. Why do we have to speak, read and write Welsh but only speak Gaelic? Why should penalties vary for non-return? Why should most fines be £25 when after the 1971 census eight Belfast priests were fined only £7? A man at Halesowen who said that the census was an obnoxious and bossy imposition was fined £15. These are serious questions.
Then there is the whole question of confidentiality. This is perhaps the most serious matter of all. I understand that many of the enumerators turned out to be Government or local government officials and —Inland Revenue officials, Customs officials, rent and welfare officials and immigration officials, many of them and—this is the most serious aspect—working in their home districts.
What has the Minister to say about that? I thought that he brushed aside too lightly the question of confidentiality. When I was in Sweden recently, the question of the confidentiality of medical records was being discussed, and the worry was that there could not be interchange of records between one region and another because of the lack of confidentiality of computer records.
Is it correct that it would cost an additional £1½ million to overcome this and that only if this money is spent can it be overcome? The Minister should be open with us about this.
I think that it will be clear that we on this side of the House have the gravest doubts about this census in the way that it is set up and about whether it will justify its immense cost. If we have this census, what prospect is there that we can avoid the next? Cannot we examine alternative ways of collecting some of the same information? Without much more convincing assurances, I doubt whether I or my hon. Friends will be able to support the statutory instrument.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Geoff Edge: I welcome the proposal for a census, although my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and I thought it only sensible that the House should be able to debate all the questions which are to be asked in the census together rather than merely debating the new questions.
There is an urgent need for a reexamination of the philosophy underlying the hold of a census. The 1976 Census of Population White Paper states:
The object of the census is to provide statistics about the whole population and groups within it, so that government and local authorities can do their job efficiently.
I question whether that should be the sole purpose of holding a census and whether, in terms of cost-effectiveness, it could be shown that holding a census considerably improved the efficiency of central or local government.
Increasingly Parliament is considering more sophisticated and complicated legislation covering all aspects of social and economic life, and it is vital that that legislation shall be informed by an accurate knowledge of the social and economic state of the nation. If it is not, it would be possible for the House to pass a measure of social reform designed to correct a social abuse which no longer existed. That is a danger.
In addition, there is outside the House an enormous number of people engaged in doing research into the social and economic characteristics of society, trying to analyse changes in society, and it is vital that we give them accurate statistical information on which to base their research because their analysis of our society is important if we as legislators are to understand the rôle that we should play in attempting to modify society through the process of law. Their inquiries would emphasise what was modifiable via the process of law.
I am disturbed to learn that the Government, in their consultations, called a meeting of census users—I welcome the calling of such a meeting—of users who put forward some of the information which they would seek to obtain from a census. The response of the Government officials was "We called this meeting, but the census is not for you, so that it does not matter what suggestions you make." That is far too negative a view. We should see the census, not simply, or even mainly, as a vehicle for enabling Governments to improve their efficiency, although I hope that that would be one side effect, but as a major source of statistical information on which an analysis and understanding of our society can be based. That is essential if we are to pass good laws and

if satisfactory action is to be taken at local authority as well as national level.
Further, there has been far too great a delay in producing the results of the census. This makes almost a mockery of some of the statements in the White Paper. Paragraph 11 headed "Housing questions" states:
The census figures on housing are used, with projections of future populations and households, in deciding the programmes for house building, the new towns and overspill. Up-to-date information is important for these immensely expensive programmes.
If we have to wait for four years for the results of the census, including information on housing, how can the information be up to date? It is a contradiction in terms.
If we have to wait for even three years for the results of the 1976 census, we shall already be into the future which the White Paper talks about. We all know that we would be greeted with derision if in local government on a housing matter we argued on the basis of census figures which were three years out of date.
The Government should carefully consider whether it is more important to have comprehensive figures for the whole nation on a wide aspect of social and economic life or to obtain information rapidly. I believe that the census proposed for 1976 falls between two stools. It is claimed that it will produce information rapidly which can be useful to policy makers. Yet it has to be so comprehensive that it is likely to be several years before figures are produced, and this will dramatically reduce its usefulness. Therefore, if we want information quickly it would be better to concentrate on sample censuses.
On the other hand, if we want fully comprehensive information which will be of value for long-term research and policy making, there is a case for a full census and a full analysis of the results. I do not believe that it is possible easily to reconcile the two philosophies of having information which is quickly usable by decision makers and comprehensivity within the same data gathering exercise.

Mr. David Penhaligon: The hon. Gentleman is obviously a greater enthusiast for statistics than I am. Regarding the 1971 census, will he tell the House of one thing on which he changed


his mind substantially because of the extra information which was given to him?

Mr. Edge: I believe that, although efforts should be made to produce the data as speedily as possible, it is clearly better to obtain the data at five-year intervals than at 10-year intervals. However, that is not to say that I believe that intervals of five years are the answer. That is why I argue that there is a serious case for examining the possibility of using sample censuses. I believe that the information to be obtained from censuses at 10-year intervals will be mainly for the benefit of historians and not for the benefit of policy makers and will be of relatively little use even to students of history when the basis on which the questions are asked is changed.
I would now like to turn to some detailed point on the order. If comprehensive information is to be sought on the question of places of residence, the House and the nation should be concerned to know the number of residences people have. How common has second ownership become? For example, how many people have holiday cottages? How many people have caravans which they use as alternative homes? We should be interested in this, because it is a major social trend in many Western European countries, and we, as legislators, will be faced with the consequences of the trend. Surely a census designed to provide statistical information of long-term trends should contain questions of that type. Such a question must be of major interest to many hon. Members and hon. Friends who represent constituencies which have not only many caravans but many holiday cottages.
It would appear that the information on occupation and employment is seriously inadequate. It is arguable that one of the major problems of our economy is that it has not changed rapidly enough. Occupations have not changed rapidly enough: industries have not been run down rapidly enough, and new ones have not been created rapidly enough.
What are we to learn from this census? There is sample information of the kind of work done for one day in 1976. In this respect the framing of this census is worse than that of 1971, which at least

attempted to find out what work someone was doing a year before. If we are to get a true picture of job changes and occupation changes we need far more detailed analyses. We need questions which themselves contain a time dimension. We need to ask what employment the respondent had been engaged in for the last five years; what was the location of his employer; and what was the nature of his employment. That would enable us to see what amount of transition there had been in terms of occupations and places of employment. The census does not provide that information.
In Schedule 3 of the Census Order there are 10 sets of questions which are to be asked merely on a sample basis. I wonder whether this is an accurate sample frame, in the first place, if so many questions are asked merely on a sample basis—hopefully, on a 10 per cent. sample basis. It would have been better to have had a 10 per cent. sample census in the first place. If we want detailed and comprehensive information these questions should be answered by every household.
Again, we have a dual philosophy—the desire for comprehensive statistics, on the one hand, and the desire for sample information which is easily obtainable, on the other. I believe the proposals in Schedule 3 try to meet both criteria and fail to meet either.
I welcome the order, because I believe that information that is five or seven years old is better than information which is 10 years old; that as society is changing so rapidly, to try to base our analyses of that society, at the end of a census period, on information which is 10 years old is nonsense.
I ask the Government to think seriously about the possibility of obtaining census information on a sample basis—information that is obtainable at yearly intervals and can be made available to a wide range of users. I want the Government to be far more willing to consult users of the census about the information that they need to conduct their researches fully.
I should like to see a totally separate exercise designed to obtain comprehensive data covering a full census, which could be carried out quite reasonably at 10-yearly intervals. I think that this


order, welcome as it is as an improvement on the previous situation, tries to combine two philosophies—the need for sample information and the desire to obtain comprehensive statistics—and I think that to this extent it is defective.

11.40 p.m

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move, as an amendment to the proposed motion, to leave out from 'That' to 'to' and insert:
'item 17(a) in Schedule 2'.
I am grateful to the Minister of State for taking care to deal with the specific points raised not just in my amendment but in the early day motion associated with it. He will be aware of the procedural complications that make it necessary for us to have an amendment, an early day motion and a prayer to obtain a satisfactory debate on this issue. I am also grateful that the Minister took the point that I am seeking to persuade him of the desirability of treating a large section of the census on a voluntary basis.
We are discussing a proposal which has the twin disadvantage of costing £21 million—perhaps even £25 million by the time it is completed—and of making substantial incursions into an individual's liberty and privacy. It is against that background that we should judge whether it is necessary for the purpose of planning Government expenditure. Given that the Government are committed to some sort of census, I hope that in this exercise tonight we can make fundamental changes in the philosophy of the census and persuade them, through the amendment, by rejection of the order or by other means, that their whole approach to the census should be changed.
The White Paper on the census was published on the same day as the order, which does not leave much scope for any assumption that the Government will change their minds as a result of any comments. It was said on page 3 of that document:
The first job of the census is to count the population.
I do not quarrel with that statement or its implications. It seems reasonable that the State should obtain basic information about population and citizens on pain of penalty. It should be able to establish

how many people there are, where they live, and whether they are male or female. It is understandable that the simple basic facts should he obtainable on pain of penalty. But when these penalties are extended to a wider range of questions, the matter becomes objectionable.
I understand the arguments of Government Departments that they require information for the purposes of planning. I know how far those demands can go and how much more extensive than the present census any proposals might be in relation to the requirements of some Government Departments and other bodies. But there are already enough points of conflict between citizens and State without threatening individuals with fines or imprisonment because they do not want to say whether they speak Gaelic, write Welsh, did well at school, have a fixed bath, or walk to work.
There are two kinds of question I would criticise when they are compulsory. There are those questions which are acceptable in themselves but which should not be compulusory. That applies to most of the matters I have already mentioned. Most of us do not object to being asked those things in principle, but would object to being fined if we are not willing to answer them. Secondly, there are those questions which give rise to serious misgivings and which perhaps should not appear at all. Looking back to 1971, we recall questions about date of entry, relationship to head of household, and so on. Those questions caused real fears —fears that people might be made the basis of a "round-up" of immigrants, fears of past shadows hanging over people's lives that might be brought out into the open, fears among people with adopted children when the fact of adoption had not been disclosed locally. For those fears to be exacerbated by fines is unacceptable.
The Government have dropped these questions but have retained others, such as parents' place of birth and place of residence five years ago. What value can we place on this insistence when the questions which have now been dropped were regarded as indispensible. When my noble Friend Lord Avebury raised these matters in 1971, he was told that those questions must be included. They have now been dropped. Therefore, what value can we attach to similar assertions


of indispensibility about questions in the present census?
There are a number of objections to the question about the parents' place of birth. In the first place, it does not tell one very much about the problems of immigrant communities or about the problem of language, and contributes to the notion that anybody with a parent born abroad is a problem.

Mr. Stanley Newens: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the fact that this information may not be available at a later stage may give rise to all sorts of statements which, with the possession of such information, could be disproved? Providing the information is kept secret, as it is under the 100 years' rule, it can be of considerable assistance in countering propaganda which may otherwise do great damage in future.

Mr. Beith: The figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred are not about immigration as such but about specific characteristics, particularly the parents' country of birth. The Home Office collects figures on immigration. The Home Office knows how many people come into this country in a given year through the immigration procedures and the collection of those statistics. Indeed, the question to which I refer is strongly opposed by organisations concerned particularly with the welfare of immigrants who fear that these figures will be used in the wrong way. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the Standing Conference of Asian Organisations in the United Kingdom and the National Co-ordinating Committee of Cypriots in Britain have made objections of this kind. I quote the Standing Conference of Asian Organisations, which says:
We have witnessed, in the past, these types of figures are being maliciously used to incite hatred against new Commonwealth born residents and their descendants, which is hardly favourable to harmonious community relations.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): Does the hon. Gentleman know that this question was specifically asked for by the Community Relations Commission and the Race Relations Board, which are far more representative of opinion than are the bodies to which he referred? Do the Liberals believe that we should try to

assist immigrant communities who come to this country and are suffering problems? If so, how are we to do that, in terms of allocation of resources, if we do not know where they are in this country?

Mr. Cyril Smith: That is absolute rubbish, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

Mr. Beith: I am aware that the question was suggested by the bodies to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That illustrates a certain lack of co-ordination in the immigrant community between the bodies which formally deal with the Home Office and those at the grass roots which are in more direct contact with the immigrant community. It is disturbing that there is complete disagreement between the two bodies to which the hon. Gentleman referred and those which I have quoted.
The issue of language might have been the subject of a question if the purpose was to direct assistance in educational programmes, and so on, towards particular immigrant problems. The question is not distinguished between particular types of immigrants and problems; it is a general question, which gives rise to fears without giving the information which serves the purpose to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We could spend a great deal of time on that point if more time were available.
If the hon. Gentleman attaches such importance to this question, why is it not being asked in Scotland? The whole of Scotland is excluded from this supposedly vital question.

Mr. Cyril Smith: The hon. Gentleman did not know that.

Mr. Beith: This question should be either removed or put on a voluntary basis.
The purpose of the amendment is to deny the Government the authority that they need to put on the form all but one of the questions which cannot be included by negative resolution. Behind it is a constructive proposal which would be even better served if the Prayer were capable of being approved. The proposal is that the basic questions about population—Questions 1 to 5—should be on the first sheet of the census form and he subject to penalty, but that the remaining


questions should not be subject to penalty. They could be detachable and returnable separately, perhaps being married with the rest of the information in the computer.
There is every reason to suppose that very few people would refuse to complete the latter part of the form—perhaps not many more than the 434 who were prosecuted in 1971. The Government have begun to accept the principle of the voluntary census in the follow-up and sample surveys. Why not go the whole way? In any case, much of the census is being done on a 10 per cent. basis, so that we are not dealing with total figures for many of the questions.
There are further grounds for concern regarding confidentiality which must not go unexpressed. In particular, the Government's rejection of so many of the recommendations of the British Computer Society which had been invited to review the census following the suggestion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). Indeed, in the White Paper on Security, the Registrar-General rejects many of the society's recommendations. He rejects the independent monitoring of the census.
The argument of the Government on this point—that they are waiting for the consideration of the Younger Report to be completed—is extraordinary. That report was published in 1972. We are still waiting for the completion of the Government's consideration of it. In another place, Lord Harris promised that we would have the results of the consideration of the Younger Report before Christmas. He apologised after Christmas and said that he hoped we might have it by Easter. It is now almost Easter and we have still not received the view of the Government on the Younger Committee's proposals. In any case, that is a red herring. It is not beyond the wit of the Government to make the commitment to independent monitoring of this census, even if they have not been able to complete their consideration of the Younger Committee report. The two issues can be separated, at least for the time being.
I should have thought that the Government could have made up their mind on the monitoring of the census without worrying about the Younger Committee,

the results of the consideration of which we all await but which need not be wrapped up with this matter.
The rejection of the independent reception of citizens' complaints is a matter for serious concern. It is likely to pose problems during the census. Members of Parliament will receive many complaints, because there will be no other way for citizens to say "Do I have to answer this question?", "Can I send this form in a sealed envelope?", and "What are the rules?".
There are other matters for concern, such as the sale of information in small blocks, from which purchasers might be able to trace information about individuals. Then there is the problem of the enumeration staff. At the last census the enumerators had a difficult job. They were not well paid. Many of them did not know what they were in for. They found themselves with a difficult task, in a far more controversial form than they expected. I do not wish to attack them. Many of them had very poor facilities for doing their job. The census supervisor in Northumberland, for example, worked from his home and could be contacted with complaints and problems only when he was at home for meals or ready to go to bed. The working arrangements did not assist the enumerators.
Enumerators should not work in areas where they are known. We need something firmer than we have heard so far from the Government. Enumerators should not work in areas where they are professionally engaged as local government officers, as civilian employees of the police, or in any other way in which the information might be relevant to their work. We need stronger proposals on that point.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Since the Minister is unaware of the problems of immigrants —which is painfully obvious, because of the way he has dealt with the point—does not my hon. Friend agree that in some parts of the North of England, where there are huge ghettos, with hundreds of immigrants living in the area. it might not be a bad idea if immigrants were used as enumerators? Do the Government have any plans to do that?

Mr. Beith:: I think that my hon. Friend's suggestion has a great deal to


commend it. I hope that it has been noted by the Government Front Bench.
The constricted time available for the debate illustrates how unsatisfactory is this procedure. We need a Bill rather than an order to deal with matters of this kind. Indeed, the Census Act 1920 is due for substantial review.
It should go on record that the Government do not seem to have learned the lessons of 1971. The bureaucratic assumption is still there—as the National Council for Civil Liberties puts it—that people cannot be trusted to do anything properly unless they are forced.
The assumption still exists that demands for information should override the citizen's right of confidentiality. There is still a failure to recognise the genuine misgivings of those most qualified to understand the problems of confidentiality of computer records.
On those and other grounds, I am not willing to support the Government on this matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): This debate finishes at 12.30 a.m. There are at least half a dozen hon. Members who wish to speak.

Mr. Enoch Powell: On a point of order. You have just said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this debate will finish at 12.30 a.m. May I respectfully draw your attention to what I think is the fact that it is within the discretion of the Chair to decide that the matter has not been sufficiently considered, and very seriously to put to you with great respect that it is obvious from the course of the debate so far that it is virtually impossible for the Government satisfactorily to deal with the anxieties voiced in all parts of the House? I am not in any way seeking to interfere, of course, Sir, with your discretion, but only most respectfully to bring this point to your attention.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am much obliged.

11.56 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I am grateful to the House for its indulgence in allowing me to intervene at this stage. I shall be as brief as possible.
In moving the motion my hon. Friend referred to the Scottish arrangements, and indicated where, in the main, they differed from those in England and Wales. It may be useful if I amplify what he said.
The Government's aim in spreading many of the census topics across 10 different sample forms in England and Wales has been to reduce the burden on the individual householder as compared with the 1971 census, while at the same time obtaining sample information on a wide range of topics. Unfortunately, this extensive sampling system is not appropriate in Scottish conditions, so we do not propose to make use of it. We are dealing in Scotland with a total population of about the same size as each of the 10 samples in England and Wales and if we in turn sampled on the same scale each of our sample populations would be correspondingly smaller. Figures derived from samples are subject to sampling error. This is acceptable where the number in the sample is large, but it can introduce too great a range of uncertainty into figures derived from small samples.
Yet in Scotland we want detailed and accurate statistical information about local government areas some of which have very small populations. Examples are the islands areas—Orkney, Zetland, Western Isles—with populations of between 17,000 and 30,000 and whole districts with populations of no more than 10,000. If we are to have accurate figures of the total populations in such areas, or of groups within the population with particular characteristics and needs, such as young children or pensioners, we must have full enumeration.
This is not the first time that Scotland has been different in a census. In the 1966 mid-term census, which was a 10 per cent. sample census, several areas in Scotland were fully enumerated—Roxburgh, Sutherland, Zetland, Lewis and Harris and parts of the counties of Inverness, Argyll and the Lothians.
If it is accepted that the census in Scotland should reflect Scottish needs and circumstances in this way, we have to consider what subjects it should cover. The dilemma here is that, on the one hand, census users want information on as wide a range of topics as possible


while, on the other hand, it would clearly be unreasonable to require every householder in Scotland to provide the whole range of information which in England and Wales will be spread across the 10 sample forms in such a way that each householder will be asked about some of the topics only.
Our starting point, as in England and Wales, is that in this mid-term census we ought to reduce the form-filling burden on the public as compared with that in the 1971 census. The Scottish Departments which use the census data in their work firmly prefer full enumeration of a somewhat reduced range of topics to a sample enumeration of a more extensive range of topics.
In order to reduce the Scottish questionnaire to a reasonable length, we have therefore had to make a judgment as to the topics on which we most need information. We propose to leave out some topics asked in England and Wales, not because the information would not be useful but because, in our estimation, it has a lower priority. So the overall range of topics covered in the single Scottish form will be smaller than the range spread over the 10 sample forms in England and Wales, but the Scottish form itself will cover rather more topics than any one of the 10 forms. In terms of topics, therefore, it will be slightly longer than any of the 10 English forms. But some of the topics will be subdivided into two or more actual questions and, reckoned on the basis of detailed questions, the Scottish form will be much about the same length as the longest of those south of the border.
As a result, the Scottish census will contain no new topics as compared with 1971, though some of the questions will be more detailed on this occasion, and there will be minor differences. Because of the differences in lay-out and the make-up of questions, it is difficult to compare the forms exactly for length, but the House may wish to know that, in terms of topics and questions, the Scottish form in 1976 is likely to be shorter than its counterpart in 1971 by nearly one quarter.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that we are right to shape the census to our particular needs, and that we have adopted a reasonable course in seeking to

keep the demands on the public broadly comparable with those made in England and Wales, while reducing them from the 1971 level.
It may be helpful if I say a word about the reasons for excluding certain of the topics included in England and Wales. Those on which information will not be sought in Scotland are: the date when the person first lived at his current usual address; the countries of birth of each person's parents; the availability to the household of cooker, sink and hot water; school qualifications; and the place of study and journey to it.
I have already explained that, given the desirability of full enumeration and the need to keep the form to the essential minimum, we have had to judge what the topics are on which we most need data and what can be left out as having lower priority, however desirable they are in themselves. There is always room for argument about this, of course, but we have framed the list for Scotland with the needs of census users very much in mind.
Although we are not asking for the date when a person first lived at his usual address, we shall obtain on a 100 per cent. basis, information about people's usual addresses both one year and five years before census day, and this will provide us with two time-horizons against which to measure migration into each area in Scotland.
My hon. Friend explained the reasons for including in England and Wales the questions about the countries of birth of each person's parents. In Scotland we shall, of course, continue to ask about the country of birth of each person in respect of whom a census return is completed, whether adult or child, and so we shall be able to measure, in terms of the countries in which they were born, the composition of the population and the numbers who have moved between the different countries within the United Kingdom. But because the problems of the immigrant communities are less acute in Scotland—in 1971 we had only about 15,000 people both of whose parents were born in the new Commonwealth —we think that we can reasonably dispense with asking separately about the countries in which people's parents were horn.
I turn briefly to the important question of the availability of cooker, sink and hot water. We think that, in order to shorten the form, questions on this can be dispensed with in Scotland without real detriment to our knowledge of housing conditions. It is important to bear in mind that, in measuring housing standards, having the exclusive use of a bath or shower is more significant as an indicator than having the use of a cooker, a sink or hot water. The 1971 census showed that, of those households in Scotland which lacked exclusive use of at least one amenity, which numbered 231,000, in almost all cases—222,000—the lack was in the exclusive use of a bath or shower. We shall continue to ask about the availability of a bath or shower in 1976.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Are the Government doing anything about installing baths and showers? In other words, are they using the information from the census?

Mr. Ewing: My hon. Friend can rest assured that account has been taken of the information that flowed from the census in respect of needs for baths and showers in houses, certainly in Scotland. I can speak only on behalf of the Scottish Office. Much of our housing improvement programme has been geared to the information we gained from the 1971 census. Those hon. Members who think that census information becomes available only after three years are mistaken in their belief. Census information begins to become available almost within three months after the forms have been completed, so information is continually coming forward almost from within three months.
I turn briefly to the school qualifications. We have a question on school qualifications which was first asked in Scotland in the census in 1971, and therefore that information is available. For this mid-term census we think it more important to obtain full information about qualifications at degree or professional or vocational level and this will be done on a 100 per cent. basis in Scotland.
I deal finally with the place of study and journey to it. This topic features on only one-tenth of the forms to be used in England and it requires three

questions. The subject is generally of less importance in Scotland and, given the need to keep down the length of the Scottish form, I do not think it has sufficient priority to justify us in adding three questions to our single form in order to cover it.
In 1971 the Scottish public responded sensibly to the census, despite attempts to stir up trouble, and this must be recognised. We have little or no trouble and no lack of response in Scotland. We have every reason to believe that in the 1976 census the Scottish public will respond with the same degree of co-operation and sensibility that was displayed in 1971.

12.8 a.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No one can begrudge the time spent by either of the Ministers in explaining the proposals for the census or would wish to begrudge the time necessary for a thorough reply, if that is possible, to the points made in the debate. Nevertheless, it is perfectly clear from the course of the debate that the Government cannot, within the scope of one and a half hours, satisfy the very deep anxieties and serious questions which have been raised. Whatever may be your discretion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to the use of your powers under the Standing Order, I suggest to the Government that this is very specially a case where consideration by a Committee of the House would be valuable to all concerned. Whether this could be a topic which the Expenditure Committee could handle in the near future, or whether it could done by means of an ad hoc committee, I do not wish to define. But quite clearly, many of the matters which have been raised are more suitable to be dealt with by the hearing of evidence and cross-questioning than in the course of even an extended debate.
I want to raise only three points, two of them relatively minor. I was surprised that the Minister of State did not refer at all to the fact that there had been a report to the House on this order from a Joint Committee of both Houses —the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. That Committee drew attention to two points of definition which it believed might cause difficulty—the definition of a "British vessel" and the position of persons on oil rigs on census night.
No doubt there are answers to these points, but the answers ought to be on the record, and it is a little surprising that the Minister did not volunteer the answers.
My second query is about the British Isles or, rather, the United Kingdom as a whole. I think the Minister, perhaps inadvertently, at some stage used the expression "the British Isles". At any rate, some hon. Member did. The parent Act—the 1920 Act—was an Act for the taking of a census in Great Britain. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate the way in which, and the powers under which, the corresponding census is to be conducted in Northern Ireland, which, together with this, will give the requisite picture for the United Kingdom as a whole.
My third point, of which I have given notice to the hon. Gentleman, is that I wish once again to draw attention to the very serious evidence of gross inaccuracy and inadequacy in the enumeration of immigrants of the first or second generation, particularly in areas where there are large concentrations. I can briefly indicate the nature of the evidence of this under-enumeration.
I should like first to take the case of the London borough of Newham. I have given notice that I intended to do so to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) who has personally taken a great interest in this problem. There are two series of figures which come into question. The first is what is called the schools count—that is to say, the count as at 1st January, year by year, up to 1973, of children in schools who themselves were born in the new Commonwealth or whose parents were born in the new Commonwealth, but omitting those who entered this country more than 10 years earlier. That is one set of figures. The other is the census which in the "small area 100 per cent. returns", gives the number of persons of the same description by age blocks. It is, therefore, possible to make an almost precise confrontation of the one figure with the other. The result will perhaps be clearer if I give the figures for Newham.
The census purported to show that in April 1971 in Newham there were 6,271 children of compulsory school age of new Commonwealth parentage on both sides.
That is the census figure. The schools count for January 1971—only three months earlier—gave 6,545. There will, of course, be a minor difference between the two figures because the school population is larger than that of compulsory school age, and there are one or two other minor reasons for variation; but we note that the school count shows, with due regard to these factors, a somewhat larger figure than the census total for children of compulsory school age.
However, the schools count omits all who themselves or whose parents were in this country 10 years before. Now, it so happens that the census gives us a division of the immigrant population—in the literal sense, namely, those who have immigrated into this country—into those who were here before 1961 and those who came after 1960, so that we know the proportion of potential new Commonwealth parents who were in this country before 1961 and whose children, therefore, who will have been excluded from the schools count. Those figures show in the case of Newham that one-quarter of all the new Commonwealth parents were already in this country before 1961. So we have an unaccountable absence of those parents' children, most of whom must have been at school on census day. The census figure is far too low to accommodate the full number of children attributable to the entire immigrant population.
This is not an isolated phenomenon. It is something which appears wherever there is a considerable immigrant concentration. I shall trouble the House further only by referring to four more London boroughs—Hackney, Haringey, Lambeth and Lewisham. In each of these boroughs the proportion of children of compulsory school age or at school is similar in the census count on the one hand and, on the other in the schools count, which omits—I fear I have said this several times. but it is the key point—all children who entered the country more than 10 years before, or whose parents did so. Yet we know from the census that in every one of those boroughs nearly half the immigrant population was already in this country before 1961.
That being so, it is simply incredible that there could be so close a similarity between the purportedly complete census


figure and the deliberately incomplete school figure—incomplete by omitting the children attributable to nearly half the entire immigrant population. I wish to emphasise the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), that if we are to have these figures at all —and it is desirable that we should, otherwise we shall be prey to rumour and conjecture—it is important that their substantial accuracy should be placed beyond reasonable doubt.
I assert—I have brought this to the attention of the census authorities repeatedly—that there is here prima facie evidence that where there is heavy concentration there is severe under-enumeration. It would not be difficult to understand that that might happen. I wish to ask the Minister not to respond in detail to this point but to give an undertaking that the argument I have again put forward tonight, which can be substantiated in detail in case after case, will be seriously considered, with a check-back where possible, so that the matter will be settled once and for all, one way or the other, whether there is in this respect a major inaccuracy in the census.

12.18 a.m.

Mrs. Lynda Chalker: As a qualified statistician I want to refer to what we have heard about censuses versus samples, because there has been a lot of nonsense talked, in the other place and in this Chamber, about the subject.
A month ago I felt that there would be no objection to this order. I feel poacher turned gamekeeper tonight, because in the past month, having been interviewed by a local government official in a London borough and asked details not only about who else lived in my house but their names and various other personal and impertinent details, I begin to wonder what we are coming to.
We now have a census about to be put upon us and I have no confidence that the enumeration will be as confidential as it should be. I have found a Press statement from the Minister for Housing and Construction in which he says that he will be using the returns from the census to identify empty houses and under-occupied houses. These things are obviously something we are extremely concerned about in this House.
I am also concerned that the Government do not seem to have enough faith in their OPCS statisticians to believe that they can so rigorously organise their statistical sampling as to produce from a much reduced effort, at a much reduced cost, a thoroughly viable set of results on which future planning can be based. If the largest companies in the country and the largest organisations in the world can do this with accurate statistical sampling—if drugs can be put on the market after organised statistical sampling —I cannot see why we should go to the expense, in this interim period, of having a full-blown census which pries into people's lives nationally in the way that is already happening at a local government level.
The enumerators have freely admitted to those of us in the market research profession that they do not have sufficient training. They do not even have the selection processes to which I would subject an ordinary market research interviewer. I am completely dissatisfied with the White Paper and the evidence which has been presented to us in support of the need to have this full census. I hope that we shall get an adequate reply, but if we do not I shall have no hesitation in voting against the order.

12.22 a.m.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: I am happy to associate myself with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in his criticism of the amount of time the Government have made available for the debate. They must be aware of the strong feelings on both sides of the House about this matter, and if the debate had lasted any longer there would have been further speeches criticising the Government's approach.
Criticism of the census and the whole principle behind it are not new. In 1753 an hon. Member introduced into the House an attempt to hold a census which was described at the time as
subversive to the last remains of English liberty
and as likely to result in
some public misfortune or epidemical distemper.
I understand that although that attempt was successful in this House it was enthusiastically thrown out when it


reached the other place and it was some 50 years before the first census was held.
The basic concern of the House tonight, and of people outside, concerns the confidence which can be expressed in the confidentiality of the census and the purposes to which it will be applied. A survey published in the previous Government White Paper after the 1971 census showed that about 35 per cent. of the respondents thought that the main purpose of the census was
to provide a record of people's addresses for the government.
Fully 27 per cent. of those questioned thought that the information from individual census forms was available to
people working for the government.
Clearly, when people believe such things, however wrongly, it illustrates the genuine concern felt throughout the country about invasion of privacy and associated matters.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland outlined the differences between the census for Scotland and that for England and Wales. The basic logic seems to suggest that there must be a different series of questions for the two censuses. Perhaps there is a glimmer of explanation, if not in the Under-Secretary's speech then in the White Paper outlining the Government's policy. In Paragraph 11, which deals with the number of rooms in accommodation, it states that the question on sharing is concerned to find out
how many households have to share circulation space (or, in Scotland, rooms)".
It appears that what in Scotland is described as rooms is, in the rest of the country, mere circulation space. It would be interesting to know the basis of the distinction.
The basic criticism of the Government's approach concerns the question whether they have justified the need for a full census on a mid-term basis. This is the first time there has been a full mid-term census. Although the Minister made no attempt to explain the need for it in his opening remarks, the White Paper suggests the explanation why, with all the sophisticated mechanism provided by modern computer apparatus, we cannot use existing census information, whether on a 10 per cent. sample or otherwise to take account of the new local government boundaries. I do not regard the explana-

tion we have been offered tonight as being good enough.
We know that the expense involved is considerable. In 1961 the census expenditure was about £5 million, in real terms. It went up to £10 million in 1971. The Minister told us that the £21 million which is estimated to be the cost of the intended census is not significantly different, in real terms, from the amount actually spent in 1971. If that is so, it suggests that the 1971 estimate was wide of the mark, and we are entitled to considerable doubt whether the estimate of £21 million is reliable.
While many of us accept that there may be good arguments for a mid-term census, we are not convinced of the argument that it should be a full census. We ask for an assurance that the fact that we are to have for the first time ever a full mid-term census is not to be taken as a precedent, and that we shall not be moving towards a situation in which, instead of having a 10-year full census, from now on we can expect a full census every five years. If the Minister believes that a full census is required this time because of local government reform, there may be a good argument for considering whether a further census in 1981 will be necessary. I ask the Minister for an assurance on those two matters.
I find it difficult to recommend my hon. Friends to support the Government, but I hope that an assurance will be given by the Minister both on this census and on any precedent that might arise from this debate.

11.26 p.m.

Dr. Owen: In the three and a half minutes available to me I shall not be able to reply fully to all the points that have been raised.
I shall comment first on what was said by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Having listened to the debate, I am in no doubt that the procedure which has been followed by successive administrations is not ideal. I shall consider seriously, in conjunction with my hon. and right hon. Friends, the possibility of improving the procedure. If there is any way in which it can be improved in the short term, I will see that it is done.
The expression "British vessel" is not defined. It is an expression which has


to be given its ordinary or dictionary meaning. We realise that the expression otherwise could be ambiguous, although it has been used in two previous censuses. Oil rigs are not within the scope of the order, because the Continental Shelf Act does not make designated areas in which oil rigs are set up part of Great Britain.
No arrangements have been made for a census in Northern Ireland at present.
I have now dealt with the three points of detail raised in the debate. Under-enumeration is a complicated subject, and I will write in detail to the right hon. Member for Down, South about it. A great deal of work has been done which shows that the under-enumeration has been very small, but I shall deal with that in writing.
From listening to the Opposition Front Bench one would think that the Conservatives had never conducted a census, that they never realised that they were responsible for the 1971 census or that only a short time ago they rejected the idea of even having a White Paper on the subject.
The previous sample census was full of errors. We think that our sampling techniques have improved substantially. They are used in this census, but on the basis of a framework of an overall census. That is one reason why we think

that sampling techniques are better. There is no question of the Government's rejecting advice. We are open to advice and rely heavily on the advice of our statisticians.

Many hon. Members mentioned cost. With the present stringency in public expenditure it is difficult to make a judgment on cost. Local authorities have supported the census throughout. If we were to run into considerable expenditure difficulties, obviously the Government would have to look at this again in terms of cost.

There is need for accurate information. For instance, population trends change in London. One needs information on forward population trends in planning district general hospitals, involving, in London, a capital of up to £20 million to £30 million.

It is used in terms of planning policy for housing—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).

Question put, Thai the amendment he made:—

The House divided: Ayes 13, Noes 66.

Division No. 161.]
AYES
[12.32 p.m.


Beith, A. J.
Mayhew, Patrick
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Brittan, Leon
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Winterton, Nicholas


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Penhaligon, David



Durant, Tony
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hooson, Emlyn
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Mr. Cyril Smith and Mr. David Steel


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)






NOES


Armstrong, Ernest
Flannery, Martin
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Golding, John
Newens, Stanley


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oakes, Gordon


Canavan, Dennis
Harper, Joseph
Owen, Dr David


Carmichael, Neil
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Prescott, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Rooker, J. W.


Concannon, J. D.
Lamond, James
Sillars, James


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


Crawshaw, Richard
Loyden, Eddie
Snape, Peter


Cryer, Bob
Luard, Evan
Stewart, Rt Hon M (Fulham)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stoddart, David


Davidson, Arthur
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dormand, J. D.
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Dunn, James A.
McNamara, Kevin
Tierney, Sydney


Eadie, Alex
Madden, Max
Tinn, James


Edge, Geoff
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Urwin, T. W.


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Molloy, William
Ward, Michael




Whitlock, William
Wise, Mrs Audrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


White, Frank R. (Bury)
Woodall, Alec
Miss Betty Boothroyd and


Whitehead, Phillip

Mr. Donald Coleman.

Question accordingly negatived.


Main Question put:— 


The House divided: Ayes 66, Noes 13.

Division No. 162.]
AYES
12.40 p.m.


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harper, Joseph
Rooker, J. W.


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Sillars, James


Buchanan, Richard
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Skinner, Dennis


Canavan, Dennis
John, Brynmor
Small, William


Carmichael, Neil
Lamond, James
Snape, Peter


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Leadbitter, Ted
Stewart, Rt Hon M (Fulham)


Cohen, Stanley
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stoddart, David


Coleman, Donald
Loyden, Eddie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Concannon, J. D.
Luard, Evan
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Tierney, Sydney


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Tinn, James


Crawshaw, Richard
McElhone, Frank
Urwin, T. W.


Cryer, Bob
McNamara, Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Madden, Max
Ward, Michael


Davidson, Arthur
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Dunn, James A.
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Whitehead, Phillip


Eadie, Alex
Molloy, William
Whitlock, William


Edge, Geoff
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Newens, Stanley
Woodall, Alec


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Oakes, Gordon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Flannery, Martin
Owen, Dr David
Miss Betty Boothroyd and


Golding, John
Prescott, John
Mr. J. D. Dormand.




NOES


Beith, A. J.
Mayhew, Patrick
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Brittan, Leon
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Winterton, Nicholas


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Penhaligon, David



Durant, Tony
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hooson, Emlyn
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Mr. Cyril Smith and Mr. David Steel.


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Question accordingly agreed to

Resolved,

That items 7. 8, 9(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j), 10,:1(a) (b)(c)(d), 14, 15, 17(a)(b), 18(vi), 19, 20, 21(a) (b)(c) in Schedule 2 and items 6, 8, 10(c)(d)(e)(f) (g)(h)(i), 11(vi), 12 13, 14(a)(b)(c)(d)(c), 16 and 17 in Schedule 4 to the Order in Council entitled the Census Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.

ARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

Ordered,

That the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration have power to adjourn from place to place.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

RATES

12.51 a.m.

Mr. Robert Hicks: I am grateful to have this opportunity of raising the subject of rates in South-East Cornwall—a matter which in the past year has provoked widespread concern and intense feeling throughout the area.
The reasons that I wish to bring this important issue to the attention of the House and to the Minister are very clear indeed. Within the Bodmin parliamentary division are located three district authorities. Of these, two, namely, Restormel and North Cornwall, are only partly within the Bodmin division, while the whole of the Caradon District Council area falls within my constituency. All ratepayers, whether domestic or commercial, within these three local authorities have had to face very large increases in the actual amounts they have to pay in rates over the past two years.
I wish to give some examples of the magnitude of the increase which domestic ratepayers are having to meet in the Bodmin constituency. If we compare the total rate demand that a person living in that part of Caradon which corresponds to the area covered by the former Liskeard rural district council will have to pay in the forthcoming financial year 1975–76 with what he paid two years ago in the financial year 1973–74, we see that, on average, he now faces an increase of 145 per cent. I emphasise that that is the actual payment he is obliged to make.
Likewise, for the remaining constituent parts of Caradon, domestic ratepayers living in the former St. Germans Rural District Council will have to find on average an increase of 141 per cent. in the former Saltash Borough Council area, the figure is 124 per cent.; in Liskeard Borough Council, 117 per cent.; and in the case of Looe and Torpoint Urban District Council areas the increase is 105 per cent. in just two years.
Taking a typical household in Bodmin, which now forms part of the North Cornwall district authority, the average increase in rates for the same two-year period has been 118 per cent., while the domestic ratepayer in the former rural borough of Lostwithiel, now located in Restormel, has had to meet rate increases of about 120 per cent.
The Minister may remind the House that increases of the scale that I have mentioned are not peculiar to my constituency. However, I remind him of two additional facts. First, these significant rate increases have been imposed on an area in which average incomes are significantly below the national average. In fact, in the year ending April 1973 average weekly earnings in Cornwall were 14 per cent. below the national average gross weekly earnings figure of £41·90.
Secondly, 18 per cent. of the population of the Bodmin division are of retirement age or over. In other words, they are people who depend on fixed incomes of one kind or another. These people form the very section of the community who are most vulnerable to changes in their financial commitments of the scale demanded by these rate increases and

least able to remedy their personal financial situation.
I ask the Minister to consider urgently the possibility of introducing some form of local income assessment as an additional criterion in determining the level of Government assistance to local authorities through the rate support grant system.
The various reasons for ratepayers having to face these enormous increases during the past two years have been well rehearsed both inside and outside this House, the principal ones being the effect of inflation, the introduction of a new structure of charges for water and sewerage, and the withdrawal of the differential domestic element of the rate support grant. This latter change by the present Labour Government in April 1974 has had a particularly penal effect in South-East Cornwall.
This brings me to the crucial question of what can and should be done to alleviate the burden for the coming year, 1975–76.
I believe that the Government will shelter behind two facts. First, they will point out that they have established the Layfield Committee to inquire into the whole matter of the financing of local government.
Secondly, the Minister, in his reply, will no doubt, understandably. mention that for the year 1975–76 central Government's contribution to local government expenditure through the overall rate support grant will be just over 66 per cent., compared with 60·5 per cent. last year. This I accept, but it brings small comfort to those ratepayers in South-East Cornwall whom I have already described at a time when inflation alone is running at a level of 20 per cent.
Furthermore, while we recognise that the domestic element has been increased from 13p to a flat rate of 18·5 p in the pound for the forthcoming year, we in the rural South-West observe that the corresponding figure for Wales this coming year will be 36 per cent.
My constituents are still awaiting a satisfactory explanation of the reasons for this differential in favour of Wales. The combined average amount of general rate and regional water authority general services charge payable in 1974–75 per


domestic hereditament in Caradon was £67·64, compared with a combined average figure for Welsh districts of £45·78.
I now turn to the position of water and sewerage charges. All three local authorities represented in my constituency are paying a disproportionate burden. Former local authorities constituting Caradon undertook major sewage disposal projects in recent years. The South West Water Authority fixed a levy of 16p in the pound on the ratepayers for 1974–75. Had the principle of equalisation of sewerage charges been introduced in 1974–75, the equalised sewerage charge in Cornwall would have been 7·84p in the pound, and ratepayers in Caradon would be paying 8·16p in the pound less. Restormel ratepayers would be paying 2·46p in the pound less, and those living in North Cornwall 0·58p in the pound less. I hope that the Minister will put the maximum pressure on the South West Water Authority to equalise its charges.
I believe that local authorities which at present pay sewerage rates above the equalisation figure should not be subjected to any further increases until their current figure is reached, otherwise existing inequalities will be perpetuated, which can only lead to even greater changes in the distribution of emphasis when equalisation is eventually introduced—something which the Jukes Report was anxious to avoid.
Before leaving the subject of the regional water authority, I request the Minister to use his influence to prevent the South West Water Authority from going ahead with its present intention of introducing direct billing. This seems to me to be insensitive and unproductive. We are all anxious to save unnecessary further expenditure. It is estimated that direct billing will cost £300,000, which can be passed on only to the consumer. Local authorities already have the structure, and there will be no savings in costs. While the water rate and general services charge are linked to rateable value, it appears to me both sensible and practical to ask local authorities to continue with this function.
Finally, I turn to the position of the smaller commercial ratepayers. During the past few years these people have been subjected to a number of financial

pressures, including increased taxation, pricing policies by successive Governments, increased wages for their staffs, the increase in the national insurance contribution if they are self-employed and increased rents. Those are common characteristics throughout the country, but not least in South-East Cornwall. Many small business men and traders face acute financial problems. I ask the Minister to consider the suggestion of bringing small businesses, subject to a maximum rateable limit, within the ambit of the domestic element relief provisions.
I hope that the Minister will not hide behind the Layfield Committee. We cannot wait until the autumn, when the report is due and then for a further period while the Government deliberate the findings. Immediate interim action is urgently required. This could take two forms—either a continuation in 1975–76 of a further variable domestic relief on the lines of the July measures of 1974 or a switching of responsibility from local to central government for teachers' salaries and the provision of essential services like the police and fire service. There are more than twice as many taxpayers as ratepayers in this country. Such a decision would ensure a wider and fairer method of meeting the cost of these services. Ratepayers in South-East Cornwall are looking to the Minister tonight not only for sympathy for their problems but for a promise that he will be prepared to take the necessary remedial action.

1.06 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): In Bodmin, parties come and parties go. I am very optimistic, but I hope that it will be third time lucky for the Labour Party there. As an old friend of his in the House, I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) is back to raise the problems of his constituents. His predecessor, during his very brief spell, was tireless in raising the problems of rating and water charges in the constituency, and the hon. Member is not to be outdone. Only last week I answered a Question from him on the same subject and already he has raised the matter on the Adjournment. I make no complaint about that. It is the prerogative of hon. Members to raise questions which concern their constituents.
The previous incumbent of the hon. Member's seat set an excellent example by his strenuous efforts to bring the rate rebate scheme to the attention of his constituents. The hon. Member said that many are old-age pensioners and low-paid workers. I make no excuse for repeating that the rate rebate scheme, which was introduced with the present rating system, and which in fairness is basically the scheme introduced by the hon. Member's party, with some amendments by us, can give considerable relief to many people who are not claiming it, particularly pensioners and low-paid workers. Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, I know that he will urge all those entitled to make a claim, because they will only be asking for that to which they are entitled.
I am glad of the chance to set the record straight about the rate support grant in Bodmin. These are complex matters, and public understanding is not helped by the frenetic attempts of some righ hon. and hon. Members opposite to conceal the inglorious role they played in them. It is clear that a certain bewilderment persists in Bodmin, where the electors chose the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that they did, but he and his Government were the progenitors of the 1973 Act of which he so bitterly complains and they unseated the hon. Member who was one of its fiercest opponents while he was here.
I shall have more to say about the consequences of the Water Act for South-East Cornwall. For the moment, I merely remark in passing that many of its most eloquent critics are now to be found on the Opposition benches. I lost count of the number of times they have urged me to extend the rate rebate scheme to cover water charges—which are not, under the Act, charges for services—in exactly the same way as gas or electricity charges, or have asked me to intervene in water authorities' decision about the levels of charges—a power which, I regret to say, is denied to me by the Act. It is fortunate that, no doubt by an oversight, the terms of the Act allowed us to end the scandal of the full sewerage charge being levied on properties that were not even connected to main drains.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the percentages in his constituency—and very

high they seemed. The new grant distribution arrangements introduced in 1974–75 have had a significant impact on the rates in South-East Cornwall. For these, too, with the exception of the question of domestic relief, the Conservative administration were responsible—responsible but not blameworthy, because here reform was long overdue. They rightly recognised that a formula which had remained unchanged for seven years, with complete disregard for such events as the rapid development of the social services, had to go. The injustices done to the areas of decline at the heart of our conurbations had become too flagrant for any Government of any party to countenance. Hence the changes, which in the main we supported, in the needs element and the resource element.
More for the cities inevitably meant less for the rural areas, such as Cornwall. Change is always painful to those who lose by it, and in a controversial matter such as the assessment of local authorities' needs it it hardly surprising if the losers think that they have been robbed. But to any objective observer who sees that the 1973–74 average domestic rate in Caradon was less than half of that at Manchester, and that the average rate payment was less than two-thirds the national average, it must be self-evident that Cornwall has in this respect been astonishingly lucky in the past. Its luck could not hold for ever. When the hon. Gentleman talks to me about the increase in percentages, I must ask him. "Percentage of what?" The average rates in his constituency are considerably lower than the national average, and infinitely lower than many of those in the big conurbations, which have faced an increase in rates of a lower percentage but a considerably greater sum of money than the average householder in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I represent the constituency next door to that of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hocks). I have long been suspicious of percentages, but if the percentage argument is logical this year, what was so illogical about it last year, when the special rate relief, which was so appreciated in many areas, was granted? People in Cornwall would like to know the logic that denies the special rate relief this year but allowed it last year.

Mr. Oakes: That was the next point to which I was coming. The hon. Member for Bodmin made a passionate plea for an extension of the special rate relief introduced last July. That relief was introduced because the local authorities and the ratepayers had been totally misled by the assessment of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) that inflation would be 9 per cent. Many local authorities, taken in by the vapourings of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, found themselves in very severe difficulties concerning their ratepayers.
Attempts were made by the previous Conservative Government in the variable domestic relief, which worked very unfairly for our cities, although I confess that it may have helped some of both of the hon. Member's constituents, and we could not countenance the way that the previous Government had done this. Because of this, in July of last year the Labour Government, recognising that there was rough justice in the assessment we made in March when we came into office and found the previous settlement, decided that those who had increases greater than 20 per cent. should, as ratepayers, receive back 60 per cent. of the increase.
We did that as a "one off" measure. It was made very clear at the time to the House and to all ratepayers that that was the position. If we were to repeat it, first it would become a standard practice for Governments to bail out local authorities in that particular way. Secondly, it would be most unfair to those authorities which had endeavoured to keep down their rates. I am not criticising constituents of the hon. Member for Bodmin or his local authority in this respect. However, it would affect very adversely those authorities which had kept down their rate increases if local authorities could believe that if they had large rate increases the Government would step in and act as ratepayers, and give the money back to ratepayers
There could be no central Government control of local government finance in any way if that sort of system were to operate, if the belief existed that central Government would step in in these situations and bail out the ratepayers concerned in a particular area. I repeat

that it was a "one off" measure last year because of the special circumstances in which we found ourselves.
The hon. Member for Bodmin mentioned—I say this with some pride—that the present Government increased from 60½ per cent. to 661½ per cent. the amount of money going from central Government to local authorities. We also adjusted—I think beneficially—the needs element of the rate support grant. We also cleared off most of the debts that local authorities had and most of their difficulties of last year by an increase of over £1,000 million in the increase order. As a Government we did our level best to help local authorities.
Of course, local authorities are faced at present with inflation, as is the whole nation. Some areas—the hon. Gentleman's area is one of them—face very steep percentage increases. Again I repeat to the hon. Gentleman—percentage of what? The average rate in Cornwall, and in Caradon, is very much below the national average.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall look at the rate support grant formula for next year. It is by no means a perfect instrument. We hope that it can be improved, and I shall endeavour to improve it. I certainly take the hon. Gentleman's point about equalisation. Incidentally, on this matter the Government have made it very clear to regional water authorities that they should proceed with equalisation very cautiously indeed, because it can have some very adverse effects.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that Wales receives a 36p domestic element as against 18½p for his constituency. But it is not only water; it is the very serious effects of local government reorganisation in Wales—again not our doing—that have led to an astronomic rise in rates in Wales. Indeed, in many areas of Wales the percentage rise is on a par with the percentage rise that his constituents are facing, even despite the fact that we are giving 36p in domestic rate relief to the Welsh authorities.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have regard to the fact that Cornwall is a low income area. I am not relying upon Layfield. Whatever the results of


the Layfield inquiry produce this year, we shall have the present rating system for this year and next year, and possibly the year after. I take note of, and we shall consider, the question of the low-paid areas. We are trying to deal with them via the rate support grant.
I congratulate the hon. Members for Bodmin and for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) on bringing to the attention of the House the special problems of the Cornish authorities. We are indeed aware of them. But I must point out that, on the whole, this is

an area where rates at present are low, and that in many areas of the country, particularly the conurbations, the rates paid by the average householder are infinitely higher than the rates paid, whatever may be the percentage, by the average ratepayer in most of the Cornish authority areas.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past One o'clock.